New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-019-521, Claim Nos. 103182, 103185, 103725, 104447, 105402, 105446, Motion No. M-66333


Synopsis


Claimant's second motion for renewal is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-019-521
Claimant(s):
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON
Claimant short name:
JOHNSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103182, 103185, 103725, 104447, 105402, 105446
Motion number(s):
M-66333
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 3, 2003
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is Claimant's second motion for leave to renew relative to this Court's prior Decision and Order that awarded the State of New York a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION & ORDER, Lebous, J., filed December 31, 2002, Claim Nos. 103182 et al., Motion No. M-66018.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-66333, dated January 6, 2003, and filed January 15, 2003.
  3. Affidavit of Johnathan Johnson, in support of motion, sworn to January 6, 2003, with attached exhibits.
  4. Six separate Affirmations in Opposition of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, all dated January 23, 2003, and all filed January 27, 2003.
This motion is denied for the same reasons as set forth in this Court's prior Decision and Order denying Claimant's first request for leave to renew. (Johnson v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 31, 2002, Lebous, J., Claim Nos. 103182 et al., Motion No. M-66018). Furthermore, to the extent that any of these arguments were not previously presented, Claimant has failed to set forth any reasonable justification for his failure to present them in connection with the prior motion. (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Delvecchio v Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 AD2d 636).


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Claimant's motion to renew, Motion No. M-66333, is DENIED.

March 3, 2003
Binghamton, New York

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