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, filed April 19, 2000; Affirmation in Support of Herbert
Washington, sworn to April 17, 2000 and filed April 19, 2000, with annexed
Exhibits 1 and 2; Affirmation in Opposition of Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq., AAG,
dated May 1, 2000 and filed May 1, 2000; Reply Affidavit of Herbert Washington,
sworn to May 2, 2000 and filed May 8, 2000; and Order of Honorable Susan
Phillips Read, filed February 23, 2000.
Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), Claimant Herbert Washington ("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 February 23, 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
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 $45.00 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 inmate is housed that the full
$45.00 fee constitutes an outstanding obligation to be collected in the same
manner that mandatory surcharges are collected pursuant to Penal Law §