Opinion
# 2015-050-015 Motion No. M-85782
03-31-2015
CAROL A. KEALOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN ROMANO, DECEASED v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Tantleff & Kreinces, LLP By: Matthew R. Kreinces, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ellen Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Motion for reargument is denied; claimants have failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of law or fact on its earlier decision and order. Also, the motion was procedurally defective as it was not served in accordance with CPLR 2103 (b).
Case information
UID: | 2015-050-015 |
Claimant(s): | CAROL A. KEALOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN ROMANO, DECEASED |
Claimant short name: | KEALOS |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | NONE |
Motion number(s): | M-85782 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
Claimant's attorney: | Tantleff & Kreinces, LLP By: Matthew R. Kreinces, Esq. |
Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ellen Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 31, 2015 |
City: | Hauppauge |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
This is a motion by claimants to reargue their earlier motion, (Motion No. M-84386, Notice of Motion dated November 26, 2013) which resulted in a decision and order of this Court filed September 15, 2014. This motion is opposed by the defendant.
One seeking reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) is required to demonstrate that in reaching its earlier determination the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of law or fact (see CPLR 2221 [d]; Henderson v State of New York, 40 Misc 3d 1202 [A] [Ct Cl 2013]; Adderley v State of New York, 35 AD3d 1043 [3d Dept 2006]). The claimants have failed to do so and their motion is therefore denied. Additionally, the motion is procedurally defective in that a true and complete copy of the motion was not served in accordance with CPLR 2103 (b).
March 31, 2015
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the claimants' motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d):
1. Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support with Exhibits A through H.
2. Affirmation in Opposition with Exhibits A through H.
3. Affirmation in Further Support of Motion with Exhibits I, J and K.