New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHEEHY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-039, Claim No. 104957, Motion No. M-66436


Synopsis


Claimants' motion for reargument and amendment of claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-039
Claimant(s):
ROBERT J. and SANDRA SHEEHY
Claimant short name:
SHEEHY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104957
Motion number(s):
M-66436
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
ROBERT J. and SANDRA SHEEHY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 2, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 4, were read on motion by Claimants for an order granting reargument of a previous motion (M-65804), in which I dismissed their claim, and for an order granting Claimants' leave to amend their claim:
1. Claimants' Notice of Motion, filed February 20, 2003;
2. Affidavit of Robert J. and Sandra Sheehy, sworn to February 20, 2003;
3. Unsworn Statement of Robert J. and Sandra Sheehy, dated February 19, 2003;
4. Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to March 6, 2003. This is Claimants' motion to reargue a previous motion in which I granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Claimants have also requested permission to amend their claim. Claimants, Robert J. and Sandra Sheehy, commenced this action against the State of New York, the Allegany County Department of Health and the Allegany County District Attorney's Office for various matters relating to the use and enjoyment of the Claimants' farm located in Wellsville, New York. Claimants apparently believe that Defendants have conspired to allow trespassers to cross their land. They also assert that Defendant engaged in a course of harassment related to citations Claimants received from the Allegany County Department of Health concerning the sewage system on Claimants' property.

Defendant opposes this motion, arguing that Claimants have set forth no basis upon which a motion to reargue can be granted. Despite numerous repetitions of the phrase "the learned Judge has erred" followed by a litany of string citations, Claimants have indeed failed to indicate or to specify in what way, or upon what basis, they believe that the previous decision and order was in error. Claimants have also failed to demonstrate that the allegations in their claim set forth a valid or even logical cause of action against the State.

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 . . . Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application" (citations omitted)" (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568).

In this motion, Claimants have failed to indicate how the Court's previous ruling was in error.

With regard to Claimants' request for permission to amend their claim, they have neither attached a proposed claim to their motion papers, nor indicated in any fashion how they intend to amend their claim. Generally, a court "should pass upon the proposed pleading's merit before granting leave to amend so as to promote judicial economy and avoid wasteful motion

practice . . . (citations omitted)" (Washington Avenue Associates, Inc. v Euclid Equipment, Inc., 229 AD2d 486, 487-488). Claimants have given the Court nothing that would provide a basis for granting permission to amend or reinstate their previously dismissed claim.

Based upon the foregoing it is:

ORDERED, that Claimants' motion is denied.

July 2, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims