From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. State

New York State Court of Claims
May 27, 2015
# 2015-010-027 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May. 27, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-010-027 Claim No. 124909 Motion No. M-86517

05-27-2015

THOMPSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

ANDREW P. THOMPSON Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Dian Kerr McCullough, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Movant's motion for reargument and renewal denied, movant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law.

Case information


UID:

2015-010-027

Claimant(s):

ANDREW P. THOMPSON

Claimant short name:

THOMPSON

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

124909

Motion number(s):

M-86517

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

Terry Jane Ruderman

Claimant's attorney:

ANDREW P. THOMPSON Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Dian Kerr McCullough, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

May 27, 2015

City:

White Plains

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on this motion for reargument and renewal:

Notice of Motion, Movant's Supporting Affidavit................................................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits...................................................................2

Movant's Reply.........................................................................................................3

Defendant's Letter Dated May 15, 2015...................................................................4

Movant seeks reargument of this Court's Decision and Order filed-stamped February 11, 2015 which granted defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 124909.

While defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was pending, movant served and filed an Amended Claim. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Claim is addressed in Motion No. M-86416.

"A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law" (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]). A reargument motion is not "a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (id.). Movant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476 [1st Dept 1992]; Foley, 68 AD2d at 567). Accordingly, movant's application for reargument is DENIED.

A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). "A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation" (Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055 [2d Dept 2005]). Movant's application for renewal is also DENIED.

May 27, 2015

White Plains, New York

Terry Jane Ruderman

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Thompson v. State

New York State Court of Claims
May 27, 2015
# 2015-010-027 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Thompson v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMPSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: May 27, 2015

Citations

# 2015-010-027 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May. 27, 2015)