Opinion
# 2014-038-504 Claim No. 119778 Motion No. M-84348
02-10-2014
DIANE WORD v. T
DIANE WORD, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: No Appearance
HE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's second motion to renew denied. Sole cited decision from 1979 does not reflect a change in the law that would change this Court's determination in 2011, nor does the motion assert any new facts that would change the prior determination.
Case information
UID: 2014-038-504 Claimant(s): DIANE WORD Claimant short name: WORD Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119778 Motion number(s): M-84348 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: W. BROOKS DeBOW Claimant's attorney: DIANE WORD, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: of the State of New York By: No Appearance Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 10, 2014 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, makes a motion to renew addressed to a prior decision of this Court. Defendant has not submitted a response to this motion, which is claimant's fifth application for reconsideration of the order dismissing her claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, this motion to renew will be denied.
The claim seeks monetary damages in the amount of $3,000,000 due to the alleged failure of the Board of Parole to issue a written disposition of claimant's appeal from a denial of parole. Claimant's motion for a default judgment was denied and defendant's cross motion to dismiss this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted and the claim was dismissed (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-038-565 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Oct. 26, 2011]). Claimant twice moved to reargue, and both motions were denied on the ground that the motion failed to demonstrate that the Court had overlooked or misapplied any matter of fact or law in its prior decision and order (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-038-585 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Dec. 23, 2011]; Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-536 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., May 22, 2012]). Claimant's motion to renew was denied on the ground that she had failed to show any new fact that would change the outcome of the prior decision (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-571 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Oct. 10, 2012]). Claimant's application for a writ of error coram nobis was denied as meritless because it was improperly made (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2013-038-510 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Jan. 28, 2013]).
As claimant knows,
"[a] motion to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), must be based on 'new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination' (CPLR 2221[e][2] [emphasis added]; Alexy v Stein, 16 AD3d 989 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190 [1st Dept 1987], lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [1988])"
(Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-571). Claimant's instant motion to renew is based exclusively upon a 1979 decision in which it was held that the Court of Claims had subject matter jurisdiction over a claim that included a cause of action alleging that "State officials have not properly reimbursed contractors for work and services in accordance with the criteria set forth in [recently enacted] legislation" (Dominick Dan Alonzo, Inc. v State of New York, 73 AD2d 760, 760-761 [3d Dept 1979]), even though the legislation did not expressly provide a private right of action. This decision from 1979 does not reflect a change in the law that would change this Court's 2011 decision, nor does the motion set forth any new facts that would change the prior determination. Accordingly, claimant's motion to renew is completely without merit, and it will be denied.
It is noted that this Court has previously denied defendant's requests to impose sanctions upon claimant for engaging in frivolous litigation (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-536; UID No. 2013-038-510), and has commented that if claimant believed this Court's initial decision to be erroneous, her remedy could be found in a direct appeal of that decision (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-536), and not repeated motion practice in this Court. Claimant is reminded that sanctionable conduct is such that "is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]), and that further frivolous motion practice may subject her to monetary sanctions (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]; [d]; 22 NYCRR § 130-1.2).
It is
ORDERED, that motion number M-84348 is DENIED.
February 10, 2014
Albany, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Claim number 119778, filed April 26, 2011;
(2) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-038-565 (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., October 26, 2011);
(3) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-038-585, (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., December 23, 2011);
(4) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-536, (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., May 22, 2012);
(5) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID No. 2012-038-571, (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., October 10, 2012);
(6) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID No. 2013-038-510, (Ct Cl, DeBow, J., January 28, 2013);
(7) Notice of Motion to Renew, dated November 25, 2013;
(8) "Declaration" of Diane Word in Support of Motion to Renew, dated November 25, 2013.