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
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.