New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CHEM-PUTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-586, Claim No. 101404, Motion No. M-62107


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue/renew a motion for partial summary judgment, dismissal of counterclaims and a change of venue is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-586
Claimant(s):
CHEM-PUTER FRIENDLY, INC.
Claimant short name:
CHEM-PUTER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101404
Motion number(s):
M-62107
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Seymour N. Harris, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Reuben Goldwaser, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 26, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved to reargue/renew a motion for partial summary judgment, dismissal ofcounterclaims and a change of venue (Chem-Puter Friendly, Inc. v State of New York, M-61321, June 27, 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). A motion to renew must be based upon additional material facts not presented when the original motion was made (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co. Ltd., 103 AD2d 728) and should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why those facts were not submitted on the original application (Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352).

The claim was brought to recover $10,106.34 for goods sold to Defendant by Claimant. In the original motion, Claimant sought partial summary judgment for $4,947.02 The motion was denied on the basis that an affidavit submitted by Defendant raised an issue of fact as to whether the $4,947.02 had been paid. In the instant motion Claimant argues that it should have been awarded $5, 159.32, presumably the difference between the amount sought in the claim and the amount sought on the motion for partial summary judgment, because Defendant did not allege in the affidavit submitted on the prior motion that the amount had been paid. The argument is frivolous and is rejected.

With respect to the issues of the motion to dismiss the counterclaims and the motion for a change of venue, Claimant has not made a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. Nor has a reasonable excuse been offered as to why newly alleged facts were not submitted on the original application

Claimant has not established the necessary basis for granting either reargument or renewal of the prior motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

September 26, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

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



Papers Submitted:

1. Notice of Renewed Motion dated July 28, 2000.
2. Affidavit in Support of Renewed Motion of Bart Ruben sworn to the 28th day of July, 2000 with exhibits annexed.
3. Affirmation on Opposition of Reuben Goldwaser, Esq., dated September 13, 2000.
4. Reply Affirmation of Seymour N. Harris, Esq., dated September 18, 200 with exhibit annexed.