New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

THOMAS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-079, Claim No. 96750, Motion No. M-64966


Synopsis


Motion for reargument was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-079
Claimant(s):
ANJOLA THOMAS, LUCILLE THOMAS AND ASBURY THOMAS, GUARDIANS, LUCILLE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, and ASBURY THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY
Claimant short name:
THOMAS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
96750
Motion number(s):
M-64966
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Harriette N. Boxer, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 26, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is claimants' motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 in connection with their previously filed motions to amend their claim (nos. M-58161 and M-59717) and defendant's previously filed cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim (no. CM-58459). In a Decision and Order filed February 22, 2002, claimants' motions were denied and defendant's cross-motion was granted. CPLR 2221(d)(2) provides that a motion to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion." In this case, claimants have raised matters not offered on the prior motion or legal theories and precedent not raised in the prior motions, e.g., law concerning the State's liability for ministerial acts. Moreover, claimants have failed to show that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters of fact or law.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64966 be denied.


August 26, 2002
New York, New York

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




[1]The following were reviewed: claimants' notice of motion with affirmation in support; defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits A-C; and claimants' reply affirmation in support with exhibit A.