Opinion
# 2020-015-023 Claim No. 128722 Motion No. M-94973
02-13-2020
ZHORDRACK BLOODYWONE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Zhordrack Bloodywone, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to have his dismissed claim re-examined was denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-015-023 |
| Claimant(s): | ZHORDRACK BLOODYWONE |
| Claimant short name: | BLOODYWONE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128722 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94973 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Zhordrack Bloodywone, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 13, 2020 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves to have the dismissal of his claim "re-examined by all the judges of the State of New York Court of Claims: (claimant's motion, p. 1 of 1).
By Decision and Order dated June 28, 2019, the claim was dismissed on the ground it was not served upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i). Claimant then filed a motion "suspending the execution of [the] motion" (see Bloodywone v The State of New York, Ct Cl, August 9, 2019, Collins, J., claim No. 128722, UID No. 2019-015-181). By Decision and Order dated August 9, 2019, the Court denied the motion as claimant failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or law (CPLR 2221 [d]) and claimant submitted no new facts which would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e]). To the extent the instant motion may be considered yet another motion to reargue, it is served well beyond the time permitted to do so (CPLR 2221 [d] [3]). To the extent it may be considered a motion to renew, claimant has submitted no proof which would change the determination that the claim was unserved.
Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.
February 13, 2020
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Petition for rehearing dated September 25, 2019;
2. Affirmation in Opposition dated December 16, 2019.