New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-005-507, , Motion No. M-62889


Synopsis


The motion to "reconsider" my earlier denial of a late claim application is denied as the Federal Magistrate's report and underlying grievance do not support the appearance of merit.

Case Information

UID:
2001-005-507
Claimant(s):
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON #89A1042
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):

Motion number(s):
M-62889
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Donald J. Corbett, Jr.
Claimant's attorney:
Johnathan Johnson,
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General


Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 12, 2001
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision


On January 24, 2001, the following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Claimant for reconsideration of Motion No. M-61690:

1, 2 Notice of Motion and Affidavit Annexed
  1. Filed Papers: Order in Motion No. M-61690
Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is denied.


I denied Claimant's motion to file a late claim on Motion No. M-61690, inter alia, because the proposed claim and moving papers were totally devoid of any basis on which meritoriousness could be reviewed, including the failure to supply copies of the underlying grievance or its results, and the Magistrate's report. Claimant has now provided copies of both.

This motion must be denied. I still cannot ascertain the nature of any claims that Claimant seeks permission to file. The Magistrate's report rejected Claimant's Amendment allegations, finding he did not state a due process claim; rejected his Eighth Amendment claims as well as his First Amendment and conspiracy claims, and recommended summary judgment dismissing the federal claim.

Merely providing such documentation adds nothing to Claimant's effort to show that his application here has the appearance of merit (Court of Claims Act §10[6]).

Claimant has failed to provide any basis upon which my earlier determination should be "reconsidered." Furthermore, he has failed to provide a proposed claim and he still does not articulate what the alleged damages are, again since he seems to oppose the policy rather than alleging anything.

To the extent that in this application can be deemed a motion to reargue (CPLR 2221[d]), there are no matters of fact or law that Claimant alleges I overlooked or miscomprehended.

To the extent that this motion can be deemed a motion to renew (CPLR 2221 [e]), there are no new facts presented. Thus under either aspect of CPLR 2221, the motion must be denied.

Claimant has presented nothing before me that warrants reconsideration of my earlier decision and order. The motion is denied.


April 12, 2001
Rochester, New York

HON. DONALD J. CORBETT, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims