New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CULBREATH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-549, Claim No. 109106, Motion No. M-68502


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue denial of motion to strike affirmative defenses is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-549
Claimant(s):
JEFFREY M. CULBREATH
Claimant short name:
CULBREATH
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109106
Motion number(s):
M-68502
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JEFFREY M. CULBREATH, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 17, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves to reargue the denial of his prior motion to strike the affirmative defenses contained in the defendant's Verified Answer. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant seeks to reargue this court's previous denial of claimant's motion to strike the State's affirmative defenses. (Culbreath v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 12, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109106, Motion No. M-68314 [UID No. 2004-019-539]).[1] A motion for reargument is "[d]esigned to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (CPLR 2221 [d]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). Such motions are not casually granted since it is not a tool to "[a]fford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided...." (Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865). Here, claimant offers nothing indicating the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law originally presented that warrants reargument of this court's prior Decision and Order. Consequently, claimant's motion for reargument is denied.


Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for reargument, Motion No. M-68502, is DENIED.


June 17, 2004
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109106, Motion No. M-68314, filed May 12, 2004.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-68502, dated May 22, 2004, and filed May 26, 2004.
  3. Affidavit of Jeffrey M. Culbreath, in support of motion, sworn to May 22, 2004.
  4. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 7, 2004, and filed June 9, 2004.

[1]Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at