New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-005-508, , Motion No. M-62820


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for reconsideration of an earlier denial of a late claim application is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-005-508
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):

Motion number(s):
M-62820
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 4, were read on motion by Claimant for reconsideration of Motion No. M-61688:

1, 2, 3 Notices of Motion and Affidavit Annexed
  1. Filed Papers: Order in Motion No. M-61688
Upon the foregoing papers, this motion is denied.

I denied Claimant's previous motion (M-61688) for permission to file a late claim. The reasons therefor are expressed in that opinion. In the current motion Claimant seeks to add the dates from June, 1997, and the subsequent unsuccessful appeals of the misbehavior reports by the Superintendent at Auburn Correctional Facility on July 1, 1997, and from the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) on August 20, 1997.

Claimant also now asserts a constitutional violation based on Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172. However, nothing before me persuades me that my earlier decision should now be changed.

To the extent that this can be deemed a motion to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), Claimant offers no matters of law or fact that I overlooked or misapprehended, it is denied. To the extent that it can be termed a motion to renew (CPLR 2221[e]), there are no new facts presented which would persuade me that I decided the previous matter incorrectly.

The current papers allege no violation of due process rights and it appears that the Defendant is entitled to the immunities articulated in Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212. Brown v State of New York, supra, is not implicated.

The motion is denied.


April 12, 2001
Rochester, New York

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