New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-538, Claim No. 102681, Motion No. M-66554


Synopsis


Pro se inmate's motion to reargue denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-030-538
Claimant(s):
RONALD JACKSON
Claimant short name:
JACKSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102681
Motion number(s):
M-66554
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
RONALD JACKSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: ELYSE ANGELICO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 2, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read[1] on Claimant's Motion to Reargue the Court's prior Decision and Order dismissing the Claim. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221. [Jackson v State of New York, Claim Number 102681, Scuccimarra, J., filed March 13, 2002]:
1,2,3 Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support by Ronald Jackson, Claimant, Amending Papers of Motion to Reargue/Pre Appeal Brief

4 Affirmation in Opposition by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General, dated April 11, 2003 and accompanying exhibits

5 Filed papers: Jackson v State of New York, Claim No. 102681 [Scuccimarra, J., filed March 13, 2002]

After carefully considering the papers presented 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); See, Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(2). Additionally, such a motion should be brought within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, or in any event prior to the entry of any judgment by the appellate court to which an appeal has been taken. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(3); See, Bray v Gluck, 235 AD2d 72 (3d Dept 1997), lv dismissed, 91 NY2d 1002 (1998).

A renewal motion asks the Court to consider new facts not previously offered that would change the earlier determination, or a change in the law that would change the prior determination. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e). With respect to new facts, however, the motion should contain "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion." Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e)(3).

The underlying claim was one seeking damages for Claimant's alleged unjust conviction pursuant to Court of Claims Act §8-b. On the scheduled trial date, the Court reserved on Defendant's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds based on Claimant's failure to properly serve the Claim on the Attorney General. Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11. When the Court rendered its decision, it granted the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. The Court also noted that the Claim had not been properly verified as required, and did not state a cause of action under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act codified at Court of Claims Act §8-b.

The papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore the motion for reargument is denied. Additionally, the Court's decision and order was filed on March 13, 2002, and Judgment was served on Claimant on March 20, 2002 [Affirmation of Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit "B"]. The time within which to take an appeal from the decision and order has long since expired, thus the motion is also untimely.

Similarly, the papers submitted do not present any rationale for any failure to present any new information earlier, nor would such information have changed the Court's decision in any event. Accordingly, if Claimant's motion is interpreted as one to renew, it is also denied.

Accordingly, Claimant's Motion Number M-66554 is in all respects denied.


May 2, 2003
White Plains, New York

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




[1] After the return date, it appears Claimant continued to file additional letters and/or affidavits repeating the same information and arguments. These have not been considered by the Court since they were filed after the submission date of the motion. Additionally, it is unclear whether these additional submissions were served on opposing counsel, or if these papers are simply additional copies of the papers already submitted for review by the Court.