Opinion
# 2018-015-152 Claim No. 128261 Motion No. M-92190
08-20-2018
AMY R. WEISSBROD GURVEY, USPTO PATENTEE v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Amy R. Weissbrod Gurvey, Pro Se Honorable Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to renew prior motion was denied. No new facts warranted renewal nor would the documents submitted change the Court's prior determination that the claim was jurisdictionally defective.
Case information
| UID: | 2018-015-152 |
| Claimant(s): | AMY R. WEISSBROD GURVEY, USPTO PATENTEE |
| Claimant short name: | GURVEY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128261 |
| Motion number(s): | M-92190 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Amy R. Weissbrod Gurvey, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 20, 2018 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves to renew the defendant's prior motion to dismiss. The motion is denied.
"A motion 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' " (Johnson v State of New York, 95 AD3d 1455, 1456 [3d Dept 2012], quoting CPLR 2221[e][2]; see also Scott v Thayer, 160 AD3d 1175 [3d Dept 2018]). Here, the documents submitted in support of claimant's renewal motion were all in existence at the time defendant's dismissal motion was made and therefore do not constitute new facts. Nor would they change this Court's prior determination that: (1) the claim is jurisdictionally defective because it fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b); and (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction to review determinations of the First Department Disciplinary Committee.
The claimant's motion is therefore denied.
August 20, 2018
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Notice of motion, dated April 19, 2018;
2. Unsworn "affidavit in support", dated April 19, 2018, with Exhibits 1 - 3;
3. Affirmation in opposition, dated May 9, 2018;
4. Statement of Amy R. Weissbrod Gurvey, dated May 14, 2018.