New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FRANKLIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK , #2004-030-567, Claim No. 108337, Motion No. M-68717


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2004-030-567
Claimant(s):
FREDERICK FRANKLIN
Claimant short name:
FRANKLIN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108337
Motion number(s):
M-68717
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
FREDERICK FRANKLIN, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: ELYSE J. ANGELICO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 17, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 5 were read and considered on Claimant's motion


for "an order reopening the examination":

  1. Request for an Order Reopening the Examination by Frederick Franklin, Claimant, and attachments
  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Elyse J. Angelico, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
3-5 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer, Franklin v State of New York, Claim No. 108337, Motion No. M-67922 (Scuccimarra, J., May 7, 2004)

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law Claimant's motion is disposed of as follows:

Frederick Franklin, the Claimant herein, alleges in Claim number 108337 that Defendant's agents failed to provide him with adequate medical care while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereafter Sing Sing) on or about September 10, 2002, resulting in the permanent disfigurement of his left ring finger, swelling of the joint and permanent or consistent pain. [See, ¶¶2 and 12, Claim No. 108337].

Claimant served the Defendant with Interrogatories on or about November 10, 2003, and Defendant responded to the Interrogatories on or about November 26, 2003. In a prior Decision and Order denying Claimant's motion to compel answers to interrogatories, this Court said the responses given were adequate given the questions posed, and noted that the party responding to interrogatories was not required to anticipate what information the interrogatories were seeking, but rather should respond only to the actual question posed. See Franklin v State of New York, Claim No. 108337, Motion No. M-67922 (Scuccimarra, J., May 7, 2004).

Now Claimant wants to "reopen" the "examination for the purpose of permitting the questions to be adequately answered and to make an adequate record demonstrating substantial prejudice as a consequence of the ruling made on the examination before trial." [¶ 4, Request for an Order Reopening the Examination]. As noted by the Assistant Attorney General, however, what this request amounts to is an application to reargue the previous motion.

"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 any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided . . . (citations omitted). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application." Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 (1st Dept 1979); See Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(2). Additionally, such a motion should be brought within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, or in any event prior to the entry of any judgment by the appellate court to which an appeal has been taken. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(3); See Bray v Gluck, 235 AD2d 72 (3d Dept 1997), lv dismissed, 91 NY2d 1002 (1998).

The Court cannot help but note that the prior decision explained that the questions posed were unclear and/or irrelevant. Rather than wasting time with unnecessary motion practice, the Claimant might consider serving more appropriate interrogatories upon the Defendant as allowed by the Civil Practice Law and Rules. See generally Civil Practice Law and Rules §§3130-3133.

The papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore Motion Number M-68717, treated as a motion to reargue, is hereby denied in its entirety.

August 17, 2004
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims