New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PEREZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-077, Claim No. 100984, Motion No. M-65224


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2002-016-077
Claimant(s):
LESLIE PEREZ
Claimant short name:
PEREZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100984
Motion number(s):
M-65224
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Leslie Perez
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 1, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimant's motion "to reargue, renew, and/or resettle" with respect to this Court's trial decision filed April 1, 2002. In such decision, it was found that Mr. Perez had failed to prove medical malpractice in connection with treatment he had received for his eye at Sullivan Correctional Facility. To the extent that Perez attempts to make such motion pursuant to CPLR 2221, which governs motions to renew or reargue, such is not an appropriate vehicle, as it relates to the reargument or renewal of a previous motion – not a trial decision.

Even assuming that Perez is bringing his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015, entitled "Relief from judgment or order," he fails to satisfy any of the grounds warranting relief thereunder: excusable default; newly-discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party[1]; lack of jurisdiction; or reversal, modification or vacatur.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65224 be denied.


August 1, 2002
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The closest claimant comes to referencing one of the five grounds for CPLR 5015 relief is to assert that a document relating to a previous eye injury was not produced to him by defendant. However, no specifics are alleged as to what documents he requested or received during disclosure. In any event, such a document, without accompanying expert testimony, would not have made a material difference to Perez's case.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and undesignated exhibits; defendant's affirmation in opposition; claimant's June 5, 2002 "Supplement for Motion to Reargue, Renew, and/or Resettle"; and claimant's June 17, 2002 reply submission.