New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HAMILTON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-019-554, Claim No. 101415, Motion No. M-65317


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue denial of motion for summary judgment on bailment cause of action is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-019-554
Claimant(s):
DERRICK HAMILTON
Claimant short name:
HAMILTON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101415
Motion number(s):
M-65317
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
DERRICK HAMILTON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: James E. Shoemaker, Assistant Attorney General,of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 29, 2002
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves to reargue the denial of the latest of his two prior motions for partial summary judgment on his bailment cause of action contained in his Claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
1. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 101415, Motion No. M-63236, filed May 18, 2001.
2. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 101415, Motion No. M-64843, filed May 9, 2002.
3. Notice of Motion No. M-65317, dated May 22, 2002, and filed June 5, 2002.
4. Affidavit of Derrick Hamilton, in support of motion, dated May 30, 2002, with attached exhibits.
5. Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 24, 2002, and filed June 26, 2002, with attached exhibits.

Claimant has made and this Court has denied two motions for partial summary judgment. (Hamilton v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 18, 2001, Lebous, J., Claim No. 101415, Motion No. M-63236; Hamilton v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 9, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim No. 101415, Motion No. M-64843). Both motions were denied due to the existence of questions of fact. In this motion, Claimant seeks to reargue the denial of his most recent summary judgment motion.


A motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) is "[d]esigned to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law", but does not include the introduction of any new facts. (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). Such motions are not casually granted since it is not a tool to "[a]fford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided...." (Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865). Here, Claimant offers nothing indicating the Court overlooked any facts or law originally presented that warrants reargument of this Court's prior Decision and Order. The questions of fact previously identified by this Court in the prior Decision and Order are best left for a determination at trial. Claimant's motion for reargument is denied.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Claimant's Motion for reargument, Motion No. M-65317, is DENIED.

July 29, 2002
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims