New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-019-533, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-62129


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for renewal denied based upon failure to offer a reasonable justification for the failure to submit such new facts upon the prior motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e)(3).

Case Information

UID:
2000-019-533
Claimant(s):
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON
Claimant short name:
JOHNSON
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-62129
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: EILEEN E. BRYANT, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 7, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has filed this "Notice of Motion For Reconsideration" relative to this Court's prior Decision & Order denying his motion for permission to file a late claim.[1] The Court has not received any papers in opposition from the State of New York


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION & ORDER, Motion No. M-61105, Lebous, J., filed February 18, 2000.
  2. DECISION AND ORDER, Motion No. M-61687, Lebous, J., filed July 28, 2000.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-62129, dated July 31, 2000 and filed August 3, 2000.
  4. Affirmation of Johnathan Johnson, in support of motion, dated July 31, 2000, with attached exhibits.
Claimant's original motion for permission to file a late claim was denied due to his failure to establish that each of the three proposed bailment claims appeared meritorious. Said Decision & Order observed Claimant's failure to submit any supporting documentation validating his ownership of any of the allegedly missing items in the first instance or the State's subsequent possession. Here, Claimant's new "facts" consist of various documents including Form 2064 entitled "Personal Property Transferred", Inmate Grievance Complaints, and a letter Complaint/Appeal.


This motion is best characterized as a motion for renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) since it is based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion. CPLR 2221 (e) (3) expressly requires that "[a] motion for leave to renew...shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion." (emphasis added). Here, Claimant does not offer any such excuse. Consequently, Claimant's motion must be denied in light of Claimant's failure to offer any excuse why these submissions were not offered on the prior motion. (Amon-Ra v State of New York, Ct Cl., February 29, 2000, Collins, J., Claim No. 100275; Motion No. M-60971; Touloumis v State of New York, Ct Cl., April 13, 2000, Hanifin, J., Claim No. 99647, Motion No. M-60739).


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Motion No. M-62129 is DENIED.


September 7, 2000
Binghamton, New York

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




[1]
Johnson v State of New York, Ct Cl., July 28, 2000, Lebous, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-61687 [denying late filing application for three separate bailment causes of action]. Also, an earlier claim was dismissed due to improper method of service. (Johnson v State of New York, Ct Cl., February 18, 2000, Lebous, J., Claim No. 98851, Motion No. M-61105).