New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-028-575, Claim No. 109277, Motion No. M-68919


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue the Court's decision denying his application for relief pursuant to CPLR § 1001(f) is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-028-575
Claimant(s):
JEANNETTE ROMAN
Claimant short name:
ROMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109277
Motion number(s):
M-68919
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
JEANNETTE ROMAN, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 10, 2004
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Claimant's motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221[1]


1) Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Jeannette Roman filed August 5, 2004 (Roman Affidavit)


2) Opposition Papers: None.

Filed Papers: Claim filed April 30, 2004; Decision and Order of Honorable Richard E. Sise, filed May 14, 2004.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), Claimant seeks leave to reargue her prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee pursuant to CPLR § 1101 (f). By order filed May 14, 2004, this Court found that Claimant possessed sufficient resources to pay the statutory fee of $50.00 and therefore denied Claimant's request for a reduction. .

A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the Court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the controlling principle of law (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22; Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651). If such a motion contains new proof, it is a "renewal" motion, rather than a "reargument" motion, and should be treated as such (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but which were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and which, therefore, were not made known to the Court (Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994). As this motion contains no new proof with regard to Claimant's ability to pay the filing fee, the Court considers it a motion for reargument rather than for renewal.
Upon a review of the Claimant's motion papers and the Court's order upon the original application, and upon due deliberation, claimant's motion for reargument is denied.


November 10, 2004
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] The Court has designated the motion as such based upon Claimant's application.