New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DELACRUZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-555, Claim No. 108209, Motion No. M-68540


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for reconsideration of prior discovery motion decision is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-555
Claimant(s):
MAXIMO DELACRUZ, #91-A-5530
Claimant short name:
DELACRUZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108209
Motion number(s):
M-68540
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
MAXIMO DELACRUZ, 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:
July 1, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for reconsideration of that portion of this court's prior Decision and Order denying his motion to compel discovery. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

The details of this claim and the underlying discovery dispute are contained in this court's prior Decision & Order. (Delacruz v State of New York, Ct Cl, April 14, 2004, Lebous, J., Claim No. 108209, Motion No. M-68217 [UID No. 2004-019-535]).[1]


Claimant's motion for reconsideration appears to be an attempt to make a motion for either reargument or renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221. The State properly points out that this motion fails to comply with the mandate of CPLR 2221 (f) requiring "[a] combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought." Nevertheless, 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". (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567; CPLR 2221 [d]). 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 to warrant reargument of this court's prior Decision and Order. Claimant's motion for reargument is denied.


To the extent that claimant's motion can be construed as a motion to renew under CPLR 2221 (e) it is also denied. By statutory amendment, it is mandated that a renewal application "[s]hall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion". (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Here, claimant offers no justification for his failure to include any additional details with his original motion and said failure warrants denial of the motion in and of itself. (Delvecchio v Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 AD2d 636, 638; Ulster Sav. Bank v Goldman, 183 Misc 2d 893). Consequently, to the extent that claimant seeks renewal, the motion will be denied as well.


In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, that claimant's motion for reconsideration, Motion No. M-68540, is DENIED in accordance with the foregoing.


July 1, 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. 108209, Motion No. M-68217, filed April 29, 2004.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-68540, dated May 24, 2004, and filed May 28, 2004.
  3. Affidavit of Maximo Delacruz, in support of motion, sworn to May 24, 2004, with attachment.
  4. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 14, 2004, and filed June 17, 2004.

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