Opinion
# 2019-050-005 Claim No. 128042 Motion No. M-93069
01-28-2019
CONSTANTINEE L. JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Constantinee L. Jackson, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for rearugment is denied. The motion was brought 2 years after the case was dismissed, outside of the 30 day time period for motions to reargue and the Court is unable to discern any allegation or showing that it overlooked or misapprehended any facts or law in its prior decisions.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-050-005 |
| Claimant(s): | CONSTANTINEE L. JACKSON |
| Claimant short name: | JACKSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128042 |
| Motion number(s): | M-93069 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
| Claimant's attorney: | Constantinee L. Jackson, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 28, 2019 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for "reargument and reconsideration" of this Court's decision and order dated March 14, 2018, which denied summary judgment. Claimant has not offered any new evidence or asserted a change in the law such that this could be considered a motion to renew. The Court therefore considers the motion one to reargue the prior order of this Court pursuant to CPLR 2221. Defendant opposes the motion.
A motion for leave to reargue is addressed to the discretion of the Court and is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court has overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the controlling principle of law (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). Such a motion is not, however, "designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented" (Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v Carter, 81 AD3d 819 [2d Dept 2011]).
Here, claimant has failed to submit an affidavit in support of his motion which is required pursuant to CPLR 2214 and the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 206.8). As claimant has failed to comply with the CPLR requirements and Court rules for instituting a motion, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief (see Bucceri v Frazer, 297 AD2d 304 [2d Dept 2002]; Vanek v Mercy Hosp., 135 AD2d 707[2d Dept 1987]).
Additionally, a motion to reargue must be brought within 30 days from the date the decision and order was filed (CPLR 2221 [d] [3]). This motion is therefore untimely and would be denied on that basis alone. Finally, in support of his motion claimant has submitted nothing more than his original summary judgment motion papers dated December 4, 2017 and the Court is unable to discern any allegation or showing that it overlooked or misapprehended any facts or law in its prior decisions. Accordingly, claimant's application for reargument is denied (see Ahmed v Pannone, 116 AD3d 802 [2d Dept 2014]).
January 28, 2019
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for reargument: 1. Notice of Motion with Exhibits filed November 2, 2018. 2. Affirmation in Opposition.