New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PELZER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-561, Claim No. 100671, Motion No. M-61721


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue a decision of the court dismissing the claim on the basis that it was not served in the manner required by Court of Claims Act §11 is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-561
Claimant(s):
BERNARD PELZER
Claimant short name:
PELZER
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF TEMP. & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, CITY OF NEW YORK DEP. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100671
Motion number(s):
M-61721
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Bernard Pelzer, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Paul F. Cagino, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 16, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant has moved to reargue a decision of the court dismissing the claim on the basis that it was not served in the manner required by the Court of Claims Act §11 (Pelzer v State of New York, Motion No. M-61066, April 12, 2000, McNamara, J.). Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision(Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Products Co. Inc., 112 AD2d 410).

Claimant appears to argue that he was not given an opportunity to present proof that the claim was properly served and in support of this motion has submitted a copy of a return receipt which he maintains shows that the claim was served in a proper manner. The receipt indicates that the item was received in the Office of the Attorney General on September 10, 1999. Defendant, however, maintains that the claim was received by the Attorney General on August 3, 1999 and that the return receipt submitted in support of this motion is for the reply Claimant served on Defendant. Based upon the foregoing, Claimant has failed to show that the court mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

August 16, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion dated April 4, 2000 and unsworn, undated affirmation.
2. Affirmation in Opposition of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., dated May 24, 2000.