Opinion
No. 6117/2016.
02-14-2017
Judith MAY, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Steven BANKS, Commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services, Defendant.
Judith May, Plaintiff pro se. Steven Banks, Commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services, New York, for Defendant.
Judith May, Plaintiff pro se.
Steven Banks, Commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services, New York, for Defendant.
FRANCOIS A. RIVERA, J.
By notice of motion filed on December 19, 2016, under motion sequence number two, the plaintiff seeks an order granting leave for Justice Rivera to hear an order to show cause dated December 5, 2016.
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2016, plaintiff filed an order to show cause (hereinafter the December 2016 OTSC) which sought a court date for the purpose of enabling her to communicate her complaint to Mr. Bank's, the Commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services, regarding felonies being perpetrated by that Department. The December 2016 OTSC came before Supreme Court Justice Martin Solomon who summarily denied it based on plaintiff's failure to seek any recognized civil relief.Justice Solomon also advised the plaintiff that the appropriate place to bring allegations of criminal conduct was the District Attorney's office.
LAW AND APPLICATION
Plaintiff's application essentially seeks to effect the denial of the December 2016 OTSC by Justice Solomon by asking this court to review the matter de novo.
CPLR 2221(a) provides, inter alia, that any motion for leave to renew or reargue a prior motion shall be made to the judge who signed the order deciding the prior motion, unless that judge is unable to hear the motion. The design of the rule is to prevent a second judge of the same court from sitting in effect as an appellate court over a colleague. A court of coordinate jurisdiction has no authority to rule on a matter already reviewed by another Judge of equal authority (Grossman v. Composto–Longhi, 96 AD3d 1000, 1002 [2nd Dept 2012]citing Doscher v. Doscher, 54 AD3d 890, 891 [2nd Dept 2008] ; see also Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 253, at 433 [4th ed.] ). There is no indication that Justice Solomon is unable to hear the instant motion.
Accordingly, the instant application is denied without prejudice to seek the same relief from Justice Martin Solomon pursuant to CPLR 2221(a).
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.