New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LOPER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-019-557, Claim No. 104861, Motion No. M-67217


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue denial of motion to amend and/or supplement claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-019-557
Claimant(s):
TAMAR LOPER
Claimant short name:
LOPER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104861
Motion number(s):
M-67217
Cross-motion number(s):

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

Signature date:
August 25, 2003
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves to reargue the denial of his prior motion to supplement/amend this 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, Claim No. 104861, Motion No. M-66980, filed July 24, 2003.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-67217, dated July 28, 2003, and filed August 7, 2003.
  3. Affidavit of Tamar Loper, in support of motion, sworn to July 30, 2003, with attachment.
  4. Affirmation of James E. Shoemaker, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated August 14, 2003, and filed August 18, 2003.
This court previously denied claimant's "motion to supplement complaint." (Loper v State of New York, Ct Cl, July 24, 2003, Lebous, J., Claim No. 104861, Motion No. M-66980). By way of this motion, claimant seeks to reargue said denial. However, a motion for reargument is merely "[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." (CPLR 2221 [d]; 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. 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-67217, is DENIED.

August 25, 2003
Binghamton, New York

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