New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SINACORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-032-112, Claim No. 107738, Motion No. M-68916


Claimant's motion to "correct" a prior decision of this Court is deemed to be a motion to reargue and, as such, is denied with the exception of one wording change.

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:
Gerald Sinacore, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Michael W. Friedman, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 7, 2004

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


In a previous decision and order, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was granted (Sinacore v State of New York, UID #2004-032-050, Claim No. 107738, Motion No. M-67551, June 17, 2004). Claimant now moves for correction and amendment of that decision, because of what he portrays as "numerous errors of both fact and law," errors that he contends impact on his substantial rights and portray him "in a most unfavorable light by distorting his professional work record" (Sinacore affidavit, p 1). In effect, claimant has moved for reargument of the previous decision (CPLR 2221) and the Court will consider the motion as such.

Having reviewed claimant's objections, the Court agrees to make one correction, amending the reference to "first month" in the second paragraph of the decision to "second year."

Claimant's other objections to the earlier decision are without merit.

This action, and others that have previously been commenced in this and other courts, all arise from the same factual situation: the events leading to the termination of claimant's employment as a correction officer with the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) (see, e.g., Sinacore v Department of Correctional Services, State of New York, 1995 WL 760660 [NDNY November 27, 1995], aff'd 104 F3d 354; Sinacore v State of New York, Claim No. 95937, Motion Nos. M-59023 and M-58196, July 26, 1999, King, J., aff'd 277 AD2d 675 [3d Dept Nov. 16, 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 706 [February 20, 2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 824 [May 8, 2001]; Sinacore v State of New York, 176 Misc 2d 1 [Ct Cl Jan. 12, 1998]). While the legal theories of those various actions and proceedings may have varied, the same "facts and events" formed the basis for each one.

Claimant objects that the Court made reference to a 1989 notice of discipline, when the record of that discipline had been removed from claimant's file after a period in which there were no further problems. However, the claim by its very nature required that the 1989 notice be acknowledged and referred to in some fashion, because claimant was asserting that the 1989 notice had been relied upon in subsequent proceedings when it should have been considered totally expunged. Consequently, in order to discuss the cause of action, the Court had to reference that discipline notice in some fashion. The subsequent notice of discipline received by claimant in 1993 inevitably must be considered the "second" one, both chronologically and numerically. It simply would not be possible to explain the basis of claimant's cause of action without referring to the first, second and third (1995) notices of discipline.

The word "termination," to which claimant also takes exception, refers to the ending of something. It is frequently used to refer to the coming to end of a contract period or a term of employment. Employment may be "terminated," by several means including: the employee may leave the job voluntarily; he may leave involuntarily (i.e., he may be fired); the initial contract period of employment may expire; the employee may retire or pass away; or the employer may go out of business.

Finally, in arguing that his causes of actions were not untimely, claimant presents various theories and arguments on that subject. As noted in the prior decision, however, even if each cause of action had been timely, they each had other fatal defects. It is not necessary, therefore, to consider and discuss claimant's theories as to when each cause of action accrued.

Claimant also argues that his notice of intention, which defendant had not alleged was untimely, could and should have been considered the claim in his action. Claimant did not, however, seek such a designation, by means of a motion brought pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(8).[1]

Claimant's motion, which is deemed a motion to reargue and considered as such, is granted to the extent that the reference to "first month" in the second paragraph of the earlier decision is amended to state "second year", and otherwise denied.

December 7, 2004
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read on claimant's motion for correction and amendment of a prior decision and order of this Court:
1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Gerald Sinacore, pro se, with annexed Exhibit;

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Michael W. Friedman, Esq., AAG;

3. Reply Affidavit of Gerald Sinacore, pro se with Exhibits;

Filed papers: Claim; Answer

[1] It should be noted that such a motion cannot be brought if the applicable CPLR Article 2 statute of limitations has tolled, and in deciding such a motion, a court will examine and weigh the underlying merit of any cause of action.