New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LAMAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-082, Claim No. 105805, Motion No. M-66708


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue motion to compel disclosure is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-082
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-66708
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:
October 31, 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 Claimant for an order granting reargument of a previous motion:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed April 18, 2003;
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to April 13, 2003;
3. Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, dated February 18, 2003 (sic);
4. Filed documents: Claim, Answer, and Order of the Honorable Edgar C. NeMoyer filed November 19, 2002. This Court previously, by Decision and Order dated April 22, 2003, denied Claimant's request to reargue a discovery motion originally denied by the Honorable Edgar C. NeMoyer, who is now retired. With this motion, Claimant seeks the same relief that was denied by my previous order.

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's attempt at a third bite at the apple, 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 either of the two previous decisions denying the relief Claimant requests.

Based upon the foregoing and it is:

ORDERED, that Claimant's motion is denied.

October 31, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims