Opinion
# 2021-032-002 Claim No. 133996 Motion No. M-95866
01-05-2021
MAURICE DUDLEY v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Maurice Dudley, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to renew/reargue is denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-002 |
| Claimant(s): | MAURICE DUDLEY |
| Claimant short name: | DUDLEY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 133996 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95866 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Maurice Dudley, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 5, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, proceeding pro se, filed the a claim with the Clerk of the Court on November 18, 2019. The claim alleged that, on April 15, 1993, claimant accumulated child support arrears in the amount of $29,373.41. The claim alleged that the child support arrears amount was incorrect and that he actually owed only $2,314.00 in child support payments. The claim also alleged that, on March 22, 2019, a Support Magistrate in Brooklyn Family Court did not allow him to present evidence on the child support arrears. By Decision and Order filed on August 12, 2020, this Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the claim was untimely and the Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim. Claimant has now filed the instant motion seeking, as best the Court can tell, reconsideration of his previously filed motion. The Court will treat the instant motion as one seeking leave to renew and reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221. Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that there are no new facts or a change in the law that would change the prior determination of the Court, and that claimant has not identified any matter of law or fact which was misapprehended by the Court in said determination.
A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e]; Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 1300, 1302-1303 [3d Dept. 2007]). It shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (id.). Claimant has set forth no new facts or any change in the law that would have any bearing on the Court's prior determination.
A motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (CPLR 2221 [d]; see Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729, 730 [3d Dept. 2005]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [3d Dept. 1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [3d Dept. 1995]). The Court finds that claimant has failed to show that it overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied the law. Moreover, claimant failed to include a complete set of papers submitted on the original motion, which warrants denial of the instant motion (Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 687, 688 [2d Dept. 2014]). Therefore, claimant's motion for reargument is denied.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that claimant's motion to renew and reargue (M-95866) is denied.
January 5, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Claimant's Rebuttal, filed on September 1, 2020. 2. Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Reargument and/or Renewal, affirmed by Suzette Corinne Merritt, AAG on September 24, 2020.