New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DAVIDSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-015-408, Claim No. 108063, Motion No. M-68252


Synopsis


Claimant's motion seeking to reargue prior motion to compel responses from Division of Parole's Executive Director denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-015-408
Claimant(s):
CHESTER DAVIDSON
Claimant short name:
DAVIDSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108063
Motion number(s):
M-68252
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
Chester Davidson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Michael W. Friedman, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 1, 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 motion to compel, inter alia, responses from Division of Parole Executive Director Martin Cirincione is denied. The claim seeks to recover damages arising from the denial of parole on several occasions between February 1998 and December 2001 alleging numerous and varied violations of the New York State Constitution and United States Constitution as well as violations of unspecified statutes, by-laws (sic), rules and regulations.

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.



June 1, 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 January 21, 2004;
  2. Affidavit of Chester Davidson sworn to February 28, 2004;
  3. Affirmation of Michael W. Friedman dated April 14, 2004 with exhibits.