New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PRICE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-032-078, Claim No. 108186, Motion No. M-68635


Claimant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's prior decision regarding claimant's discovery motions is denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Keyan R. Price, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General,Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 28, 2004

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim for personal injuries which occurred on August 1, 2000, when the claimant allegedly lost his footing on a wet floor in the bathroom of the G-1 Dormitory at Bare Hill Correctional Facility ("Bare Hill") where he was incarcerated. According to the claim, a corner of the bathroom sink broke off and cut claimant's wrist as it bent away from the wall when claimant leaned onto it, trying to regain his balance. The claimant now moves for reconsideration of this Court's Decision and Order (Price v State of New York, UID # 2004-032-030, Motion Nos. M-67925, M-67926, M-67927 and M-67928, May 12, 2004, Hard, J.) which denied claimant's motions to compel the depositions of two inmate witnesses and a correction officer.[1]

Claimant's motion for reconsideration appears to be an attempt to make a motion for either reargument or renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221. A motion for reargument affords "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 [1st Dept 1979]; CPLR 2221 [d]). Motions for reargument are not casually granted because they are 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 [3d Dept 1993]). Here, claimant has failed to offer anything indicating that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any relevant facts or misapplied the law to warrant reargument of this Court's prior Decision and Order. Claimant's motion for reconsideration insofar as it can be construed as a motion for reargument is denied.

To the extent that claimant's motion can be construed as a motion for leave to renew, it is also denied. A motion to renew affords a party the opportunity to present new facts not previously available that would change the outcome of the prior determination. Such motions must contain reasonable justification for the failure to present the new facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). For new facts, claimant only offers the present addresses of the two inmate witnesses that he wants to depose. This alone is not sufficient to warrant a change in the outcome of claimant's prior discovery motions. Claimant alleges that their testimony is relevant and unique because they can testify to the condition of the bathroom and of the floor as it existed approximately seven months before the incident, and claimant can only testify to the condition of the bathroom and the floor a month and a half before the incident. Their testimony, however, is merely cumulative to what claimant will relate. Because claimant has not shown that these depositions are necessary and not merely cumulative and, because he has not offered any new facts to warrant a change in this Court's prior decision, claimant's motion for reconsideration insofar as it can be construed as a motion to renew is denied (see generally Matter of Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc. v Assessor of Harverstraw, 304 AD2d 668 [2d Dept 2003]).

For the reasons set forth above, claimant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

September 28, 2004
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court has read and considered the following papers:

1. Notice of motion and supporting affirmation of Keyan R. Price, pro se;

2. Opposing affirmation of Glenn C. King, AAG.;

3. Filed papers: Claim, Answer.

[1] Motion No. M-67926 asked this Court to compel the attendance of two inmate witnesses at depositions; Motion No. M-67927 asked this Court for an order directing the examination of all three witnesses and related relief with respect to the manner in which the depositions were to be taken; Motion No. M-67925 asked for a subpoena directing the transfer of claimant to the location where the depositions were to be taken; and Motion No. M-67928 again asked this Court for an order directing that the two inmate witnesses be deposed upon oral questions.