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