New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALIK v. New York, #2000-019-503, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-61103


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2000-019-503
Claimant(s):
ABDEL-JABBOR MALIK
Claimant short name:
MALIK
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
None
Motion number(s):
M-61103
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
ABDEL-JABBOR MALIK, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Susan J. Pogoda, Assistant Attorney General,of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 8, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant previously filed a motion for permission to file a late claim which was denied by Decision & Order of this Court.[1] Claimant has now filed this "Motion For Reconsideration by CPLR 2221" relative to said Decision & Order.

The Court considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION & ORDER, Ct. Cl, January 19, 2000, Lebous J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-60581.
  2. "NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION" Motion No. M-61103, dated January 23, 2000 and filed January 26, 2000 with attached Memorandum of Law in support of motion.
  3. Affirmation of Susan J. Pogoda, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated February 14, 2000 and filed February 17, 2000.
  4. "PROSE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT IN OBJECTION TO DECISION AND ORDER DATED", of Abdel-Jabbor Malik, undated and received in the Chief Clerk's Office on February 15, 2000.
  5. "HANDWRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DEFT'S AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION", of Abdel-Jabbor Malik, dated February 20, 2000 and filed March 1, 2000.


This motion is best characterized as a motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) since Claimant's arguments attempt to convince this Court that its prior Decision & Order was wrong on the facts and/or the law without raising any new proof. Reargument does not permit the unsuccessful party a forum in which to argue the very same issues again, but rather is "[d]esigned to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). Here, Claimant has submitted nothing to convince this Court that it previously misapplied the law or facts so as to warrant reargument.


Additionally, Claimant raises for the first time in his reply papers the contention that his motion also qualifies as a motion for renewal. (Claimant's "Handwritten Objections to Deft's Affirmation Opposition"). It is well-settled that a motion for renewal must contain new facts and a valid excuse as to why those new facts were not previously discovered and submitted to the Court. (CPLR 2221[e]). Claimant's urges this Court to accept as his excuse that he did not expect the Court to address, among other things, the issue of immunity in its prior Decision & Order. Claimant does not offer new facts. In any event, assuming, arguendo, the presence of new facts, Claimant's surprise does not qualify as a valid excuse and, as such, this motion will not alternatively be considered as a motion for renewal.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Motion No. M-61103 is DENIED.




March 8, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]Malik v State of New York, Ct Cl., January 19, 2000, Lebous, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-60581.