New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JENNINGS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-010-009, Claim No. 100467, Motion No. M-61185


Synopsis


Motion for reargument/renewal denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-009
Claimant(s):
ALAN JENNINGS
Claimant short name:
JENNINGS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100467
Motion number(s):
M-61185
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
ALAN JENNINGSPro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 23, 2000
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/renewal:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit.................................................1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition......................................................................2

Claimant seeks reargument/renewal of this Court's Decision and Order, file stamped January 12, 2000 (M-60614, M-60293, CM-60682), which granted defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the claim on the basis of collateral estoppel. The Court's Decision and Order stated:

All of claimant's factual allegations, including the amendment, were addressed with specificity in the Article 78 proceeding and determined to be without merit (Defendant's Ex. A). Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the Parole Board's denial of claimant's application for parole. The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars claimant from relitigating the very same issues which he had a full and fair opportunity to contest in the Article 78 proceeding (see, Brooks v Green's Appliances, 259 AD2d 893; Harrison v Stanton, 253 AD2d 537).

To the extent that claimant's motion may be construed as a motion for reargument, it fails to establish 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; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Accordingly, to the extent that claimant's motion seeks reargument, the motion is DENIED.

"An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court. Renewal should be denied where the party fails to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application" (see, Mangine v Keller, supra at 477). Claimant's motion does not set forth any additional material facts which were not before the Court on the cross-motion. Accordingly, to the extent that claimant seeks renewal, the motion is DENIED


March 23, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims