Opinion
# 2018-054-087 Claim No. 131356 Motion No. M-92553
08-30-2018
DIANE WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DIANE WORD Pro Se HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General for the State of New York By: Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion to reargue denied. Claimant 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: | 2018-054-087 |
| 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): | 131356 |
| Motion number(s): | M-92553 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | WALTER RIVERA |
| Claimant's attorney: | DIANE WORD Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General for the State of New York By: Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 30, 2018 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for reargument:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Declaration in Support of Motion and Exhibit.........1 Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition, Memorandum of Law and Exhibit............2
Claimant moves for reargument of this Court's Decision and Order (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-065 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 20, 2018]) which granted defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 131356 on jurisdictional grounds.
"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.). Claimant 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, claimant's motion for reargument is DENIED.
August 30, 2018
White Plains, New York
WALTER RIVERA
Judge of the Court of Claims