New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HOLLAND v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-033-062, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-67559


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):

James J. Lack
Claimant's attorney:
Richard Holland, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Anne C. Leahey, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 24, 2004

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


By a decision and order filed October 8, 2003, the Court denied Richard Holland's motion to file a late claim (M-66837). Richard Holland (hereinafter "movant") now seeks to vacate the prior order pursuant to CPLR §2221[1] to renew and reargue the original motion.[2]

Movant's original motion for a late claim was based upon an alleged false robbery verdict, false arrest, false imprisonment, deprivation of counsel, malicious prosecution, deprivation of constitutional rights, fraud and duress.

Movant alleges the incident underlying this claim arose on June 16, 2000 when he was falsely arrested by Suffolk County Police for robbery instead of a man named Frederick Booker. He further alleges he was deprived of the right to counsel for the false arrest in Suffolk County District Court on June 17, 2000. Movant states he was speaking to a woman named Bonnie Wells on June 16, 2000 in Wyandanch. After walking away, he was arrested and charged with a felony by the Suffolk County Police. A trial verdict of guilty was rendered on March 19, 2001 and movant was sentenced to serve seven years on April 24, 2001. Movant claims he was deprived of the right to a fair cross section of the community on jury selection and jury at trial.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion to reargue attempts to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended relevant facts, or misapplied a controlling principle of law (Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Products Co., 112 AD2d 410). CPLR 2221 states that a motion for leave to reargue:
1. shall be identified specifically as such;

2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and

3. shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry.

In the instant motion, movant makes no attempt to argue where or how the Court misapprehended any relevant factors or misapplied the law to the six factors required to file a late claim. Movant reiterates the original motion with no new arguments. The motion fails to show a sufficient basis to grant reargument.

A motion to renew, pursuant to CPLR 2221(e):
1. shall be identified specifically as such;

2. shall be based upon 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; and

3. shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.

Movant offers no new facts. The Court agrees with the defendant that if Ms. Wells has been located, then she may be important to the movant in exculpating him from the crimes for which he has been convicted.

In the instant case, movant has been convicted of a felony by a trial verdict rendered in Suffolk County Court on March 19, 2001 and was sentenced to seven years in jail on April 24, 2001(see Sentence and Commitment). Movant alleges he was falsely accused, convicted and falsely imprisoned. As of this date, there is no indication that movant's conviction has been reversed or vacated or that he was found not guilty at a new trial. Movant remains incarcerated. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter (Court of Claims Act §9). In his notice of motion and proposed claim, movant implicates the County of Suffolk rather than the State. If movant is able to have his conviction reversed on an appeal, then he would have a claim under Court of Claims Act §8-b for unjust conviction and imprisonment and this Court would have jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies movant's motion to renew and reargue.

June 24, 2004
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1]The following papers have been read and considered on movant's notice of motion: Notice of Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2003 and filed October 23, 2003; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Claimant's Motion for Reconsideration of Anne C. Leahey, Assistant Attorney General dated November 19, 2003 and received on December 1, 2003.
[2]Movant actually moves this Court for reconsideration. The Court is unaware of any such remedy. The Court deems movant's motion to be to renew and reargue.