New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-023, Claim No. 105805, Motion No. M-66398


Synopsis


Claimant failed to demonstrate previous ruling was in error. Claimant's motion to reargue is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-023
Claimant(s):
EDWIN LAMAGE
Claimant short name:
LAMAGE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105805
Motion number(s):
M-66398
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
EDWIN LAMAGE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 22, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 6, were read on motion by Claimant for an order granting reargument:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed February 13, 2003;
2. Claimant's unsworn Affidavit, dated February 6, 2003;
  1. Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., dated February 11, 2003, with attached exhibit;
4. Claimant's unsworn "Supplement Notice of Motion" and statement, dated February 12, 2003
5. Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., dated February 18, 2003.
6. Filed documents: Claim, Answer, and Order of the Honorable Edgar C. NeMoyer filed November 19, 2002. This is Claimant's motion to reargue a motion to compel discovery from Defendant. Claimant's previous motion was denied by the Hon. Edgar C. NeMoyer by order filed November 19, 2002. The claim in this matter alleges that Defendant was negligent in failing to protect Claimant from an assault by another inmate on April 16, 2001. In his previous motion, Claimant sought to compel disclosure of documents relating to the disciplinary hearing and related records of his assailant, inmate K. Jones (97-A-3563). He also sought a copy of the Tier III hearing transcript relating to his own subsequent disciplinary hearing. Judge NeMoyer determined that Claimant had failed to demonstrate the need for, or relevance of, the documents relating to this other inmate's disciplinary proceedings, and that the hearing transcript need not be produced (see Gittens v State of New York, 175 AD2d 530).

A motion to reargue is governed by CPLR § 2221 [d] [2] and "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).

In this motion, Claimant has failed to indicate how Judge NeMoyer's ruling was in error, and indeed, Claimant has again failed to offer any evidence as to how these documents are related or necessary for the prosecution of his case. I see no reason to disturb Judge NeMoyer's decision.

Based upon the foregoing and it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is denied.

April 22, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims