New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DAWKINS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-028-575, Claim No. 107847, Motion No. M-67257


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-028-575
Claimant(s):
EDWARD C. DAWKINS
Claimant short name:
DAWKINS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107847
Motion number(s):
M-67257
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
EDWARD C. DAWKINS, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Joseph F. Romani, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 24, 2003
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant's motion[1] for reargument of

his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee:


1) Affidavit of Edward C. Dawkins filed August 14, 2003, with annexed exhibit;


2) Opposition: None.


3) Order of Honorable Richard E. Sise, filed June 25, 2003.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), Claimant Edward C. Dawkins ("Claimant") seeks leave to reargue his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee pursuant to CPLR 1101 (f). By order filed June 25, 2003, this Court found that Claimant possessed sufficient resources to pay the statutory fee of $50.00 and therefore denied Claimant's request for a reduction.

A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the Court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the controlling principle of law (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22; Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651). If such a motion contains new proof, it is a "renewal" motion, rather than a "reargument" motion, and should be treated as such (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but which were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and which, therefore, were not made known to the Court (Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994). As this motion contains no new proof, the Court considers it a motion for reargument rather than for renewal.

Upon a review of the Claimant's motion papers and the Court's order upon the original application, and upon due deliberation, Claimant's motion for reargument is denied.

October 24, 2003
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims





[1] The Court is treating the application as a motion for reargument notwithstanding Claimant has styled his papers as a new application pursuant to CPLR 1101(f) and has failed to attach a notice of motion to the affidavit.