New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DOUVARTIDIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-506, Claim No. 104450, Motion No. M-66027


Synopsis


Claimant's application to reargue Court's prior Decision and Order dismissing Claim Denied. Papers submitted do not establish that Court misapplied any controlling principle of law, in determining that State of New York was not a proper party defendant in Labor Law claim.

Case Information

UID:
2003-030-506
Claimant(s):
FOTIOS DOUVARTIDIS
Claimant short name:
DOUVARTIDIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104450
Motion number(s):
M-66027
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
ELAN WURTZEL, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
McCABE & MACK LLP By: DEBORAH J. SOLOT, ESQ.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 13, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 6 were read on Claimant's motion, brought pursuant to §2221 Civil Practice Law and Rules, to reargue this Court's prior Decision and Order dismissing Claim Number 104450 for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that the State of New York was not a proper party defendant Douvartidis v State of New York, (Ct Cl), Scuccimarra, J., October 29, 2002, UID 2002-030-537 www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us/decisions).
1,2 Notice of Motion to Reargue; Affirmation in Support by Elan Wurtzel, Esq., Counsel for Claimant and accompanying exhibits

  1. Affirmation in Opposition of Deborah J. Solot, Esq., Counsel for Defendant
  1. Reply Affirmation of Elan Wurtzel, Esq.
5,6 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

"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 any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided...(citations omitted). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application." Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 (1st Dept. 1979). The papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore the motion for reargument is denied.


January 13, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims