New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ANDUJAR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-001-013, Claim No. 102080, Motion No. M-61582


Synopsis


Claimant's motion requesting leave to reargue his prior application for filing fee reduction is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2000-001-013
Claimant(s):
HECTOR ANDUJAR
Claimant short name:
ANDUJAR
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102080
Motion number(s):
M-61582
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Susan phillips read
Claimant's attorney:
Hector Andujar, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Saul Aronson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 25, 2000
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant's motion for reargument of his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee: Notice of Motion, dated April 15, 2000 and filed April 24, 2000; Affidavit of Hector Andujar, sworn to April 15, 2000 and filed April 24, 2000, with annexed exhibit; Affirmation in Opposition of Saul Aronson, Esq., AAG, dated March 28, 2000 and filed May 4, 2000; and Order of Honorable Susan Phillips Read, filed April 7, 2000.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), claimant Hector Andujar ("claimant") seeks leave to reargue his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee pursuant to CPLR 1101 (f). By order filed April 7, 2000, this Court found that claimant possessed sufficient resources to pay the statutory fee of $50.00 and therefore denied claimant's request for a reduction.

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 the controlling principle of law (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22; Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651). If such a motion contains new proof, it is a "renewal" motion, rather than a "reargument" motion, and should be treated as such (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but which were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and which, therefore, were not made known to the Court (Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994). As this motion contains no new proof, the Court considers it a motion for reargument rather than for renewal.

Upon a review of the claimant's motion papers, the State of New York's opposition papers and the Court's order upon the original application, and upon due deliberation, claimant's motion for reargument is granted. The Court further concludes, upon review of the papers filed in support of claimant's application for a reduction in the filing fee required by Court of Claims Act § 11-a (1), that the filing fee herein should be and hereby is set at $35.00 pursuant to CPLR 1101 (f). The Court further directs that no initial payment of the reduced fee is required; however, the Clerk of the Court shall notify the appropriate official at the facility where the claimant is housed that the full $35.00 fee constitutes an outstanding obligation to be collected in the same manner that mandatory surcharges are collected pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 (5).


May 25, 2000
Albany, New York

HON. SUSAN PHILLIPS READ
Judge of the Court of Claims