New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AHLERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-001-032, Claim No. 101847, Motion No. M-61398


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for reargument of his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-001-032
Claimant(s):
KARL AHLERS
Claimant short name:
AHLERS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101847
Motion number(s):
M-61398
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
SUSAN PHILLIPS READ
Claimant's attorney:
Karl Ahlers, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Paula Pavlides, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 27, 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 filed March 22, 2000; Affidavit of Karl Ahlers, sworn to March 16 and filed March 22, 2000; Affirmation of Paula Pavlides, Esq., AAG, dated April 3 and filed April 6, 2000; Order of Hon. Susan Phillips Read, filed February 15, 2000.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), claimant Karl Ahlers ("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 15, 2000, this Court granted claimant's request for a fee reduction of the Court's filing fee and reduced the fee to $25.00.

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 the claimant's 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 denied as the Court finds it properly applied the controlling principle of law.

June 27, 2000
Albany, New York

HON. SUSAN PHILLIPS READ
Judge of the Court of Claims