New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ARROYO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-085, Claim No. 103695, Motion No. M-65533


Synopsis


Motion for reargument was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-085
Claimant(s):
DAVID ARROYO
Claimant short name:
ARROYO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103695
Motion number(s):
M-65533
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Flora Edwards, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Nancy Hornstein, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 27, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 in connection with its previously filed motion to dismiss the claim of David Arroyo (motion no. M-64501). In a Decision and Order filed June 3, 2002, such motion was granted in part and denied in part; claimant's causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and state constitutional tort were dismissed and those for malicious prosecution and negligent hiring, training and supervision were let stand. Defendant seeks reargument with regard to such latter two causes of action which remain. 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." Defendant has failed to show that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters of fact or law. See, e.g., Quilliam v State of New York, Ct Cl dated 8/17/00, Marin, J. (unreported, motion no. M-61944).[1]

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65533 be denied.


August 27, 2002
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]The decision on the underlying motion for permission to file a late claim, Quilliam v State of New York, Ct Cl dated 4/20/00, Marin J. (unreported, motion no. M-61113), was affirmed, 282 AD2d 590, 723 NYS2d 389 (2d Dept 2001).
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-C; and claimant's affirmation in opposition.