New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GLOSTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-015-380, Claim No. 106900, Motion No. M-67640


Synopsis


Pro se inmate's motion to reargue prior motion denied absent proof that Court overlooked facts or misapplied existing law.

Case Information

UID:
2004-015-380
Claimant(s):
JERRY GLOSTER
Claimant short name:
GLOSTER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106900
Motion number(s):
M-67640
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Jerry Gloster, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 23, 2004
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant's motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2221 granting leave to reargue a prior unsuccessful motion for summary judgment which resulted in a decision and order of this Court dated September 26, 2003 is denied. The claim seeks to recover damages for the loss of personal property incident to claimant's transfer between various correctional facilities. Claimant has alleged on the instant motion that the Court overlooked the body of law governing bailments in determining that defendant's opposing papers submitted on the prior motion raised a material issue of fact. The defendant has opposed the motion.

It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see, CPLR, Rule 2221 [d][2]; Spa Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 213 AD2d 781; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567, leave denied 56 NY2d 507).

The Court is not persuaded by the motion papers that it misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law in arriving at its determination on the prior motion. Claimant's motion to reargue is therefore denied.


January 23, 2004
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated October 30, 2003;
  2. Affidavit of Jerry Gloster dated October 30, 2003 with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Resnick dated November 14, 2003.