New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VASILE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-019-546, Claim No. 99806, Motion No. M-62583


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue and renew denied.


Case Information

UID:
2000-019-546
Claimant(s):
CARMINE VASILE
Claimant short name:
VASILE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99806
Motion number(s):
M-62583
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
CARMINE VASILE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Denis J. McElligott, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 5, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant previously filed a motion entitled "Notice of Motion For Default & To Punish". This Court denied said motion and dismissed Claim No. 99806 in its entirety. (Vasile v State of New York, Ct Cl., October 6, 2000, Lebous, J., Claim No. 99806, Motion No. M-61844). Claimant has now filed a "Notice of Motion To Renew & Reargue". The State opposes the motion.[1]


The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION & ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 99806, Motion No. M-61844, filed October 6, 2000.
  2. Notice of Motion to Renew & Reargue, No. M-62583, dated October 16, 2000, and filed October 18, 2000.
  3. Affidavit of Carmine Vasile, in support of motion, sworn to October 16, 2000, with attached exhibits.
  4. Letter from Denis J. McElligott, AAG, to Court dated November 20, 2000 and received by the Court on November 21, 2000.
  5. Affirmation of Denis J. McElligott, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated November 20, 2000 and filed November 21, 2000.
  6. Reply Affidavit with Memorandum of Law, of Carmine Vasile, in support of motion, sworn to November 25, 2000, and filed November 27, 2000, with attached exhibits.
The law relative to motions to renew or reargue is not complex. A motion to reargue is premised upon the theory that the court has overlooked significant facts or misapplied the law in its original decision, but does not include the introduction of any new facts. (Matter of Town of Poestenkill v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 229 AD2d 650). Here, Claimant has submitted nothing to convince this Court that it previously misapplied the law or overlooked facts so as to warrant reargument. Next, a motion for renewal should be supported by new or additional facts and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion. (CPLR 2221[e][3]). Claimant offers no new or additional facts, but rather only a new legal theory. (Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v Chin, 236 AD2d 392).


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED the Claimant's Motion to Reargue and Renew, Motion No. M-62583, is DENIED.


December 5, 2000
Binghamton, New York

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



[1]
The Court, in its discretion, has accepted and considered the State's Affirmation in Opposition, although it was not submitted within the time limits set forth in CPLR 2214, in light of the good cause as set forth in a letter from Denis J. McElligott, AAG dated November 20, 2000. (CPLR 2214 [c]). The Court also accepted and considered Claimant's Reply Affidavit.