New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LESANE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-009-039, Claim No. 102912, Motion No. M-63411


Synopsis


Claimant's motion seeking leave to reargue a prior motion was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-009-039
Claimant(s):
JAMES LESANE
Claimant short name:
LESANE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102912
Motion number(s):
M-63411
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
JAMES LESANE, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 6, 2001
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a), seeks leave to reargue his prior motion brought to compel discovery and inspection. By his prior motion (Motion No. M-62778), claimant sought to compel the production of Correction Officer Dietterich's personnel file with specific reference to any prior grievances made against the officer or misbehavior reports contained therein, as well as the results of any mental and physical evaluations. Defendant objected to those demands on the basis that the materials were protected by the provisions of § 50-a of the New York State Civil Rights Law. In that motion, this Court found that claimant had not established a factual basis sufficient to order the production of the personnel file and therefore denied the motion.

A motion for re-argument, addressed to the discretion of the Court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the controlling principle of law (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the various questions previously decided (Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, appeal denied in part and dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005; Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651).

In this motion, claimant has requested the Court to re-consider the affidavit of fellow inmate Darrell Felder, which claimant contends provides the factual predicate to permit the production of the requested personnel file. The Court, however, finds that it had given due consideration to this affidavit in reaching its decision on the original motion. Aside from this contention, claimant has submitted nothing new in this request.

Therefore, upon a review of the motion papers herein, claimant's affidavit in support of the motion, defendant's affirmation in opposition, and the Court's decision upon the original motion, and after due deliberation, the Court finds that it properly applied the controlling principle of law and did not misapprehend the relevant facts in the original motion. Claimant's motion for re-argument is therefore denied, as the Court finds that claimant did not and has not presented a clear showing of facts sufficient to warrant the production of Correction Officer Dietterich's personnel file.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-63411 is hereby DENIED.



September 6, 2001
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims