New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

POSR v. CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL, #2004-028-579, Claim No. 109609, Motion No. M-68989


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to renew the Court's decision denying his application for relief pursuant to CPLR § 1101(d) is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-028-579
Claimant(s):
POSR A. POSR
Claimant short name:
POSR
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109609
Motion number(s):
M-68989
Cross-motion number(s):

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

Signature date:
December 17, 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. Cover letter, Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Posr A. Posr filed
August 20, 2004 (Posr Affidavit)

2) Opposition Papers: None.
Filed Papers: Claim filed July 15, 2004; Order of Honorable Richard E. Sise, filed July 23, 2004

Pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), Claimant Posr A. Posr ("Claimant") moves to renew his prior application for a reduction of the Court's filing fee pursuant to CPLR 1101(d). By order filed July 23, 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 to renew must be based on "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994) and must present a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). The Claimant has now offered his expenses on this application (Posr Affidavit ¶¶ 10-14) and as such, the Court deems the instant application one to renew (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). Claimant himself notes the expenses were not previously submitted (see Posr letter dated August 18, 2004).

Upon a review of the Claimant's motion papers, the Court denies Claimant's motion to renew as he has failed to offer any justification for his failure to include his expenses in the prior application (Ulster Sav. Bank v Goldman, 183 Misc 2d 893). Assuming arguendo the Court were to permit renewal of the prior motion the Court would nevertheless adhere to its earlier determination that Claimant is possessed of sufficient means to pay this court's filing fee. In reaching this conclusion the Court notes Claimant avers he pays $50.00 per month in "copying fees" (Posr Affidavit ¶13) - an amount equal to the filing fee in the Court of Claims.

Accordingly, Claimant's motion is denied.


December 17, 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.