New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BENNETT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-047, Claim No. 107199, Motion No. M-70342


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for reargument is DENIED.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-047
Claimant(s):
STUART A. BENNETT
Claimant short name:
BENNETT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107199
Motion number(s):
M-70342
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
ROBERT W. NISHMAN, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Judith McCarthy, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 23, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for reargument:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation.............................................1

Attorney's Affirmation in Opposition......................................................................2

Reply Affirmation......................................................................................................3

Claimant seeks reargument of this Court's Decision and Order dated June 6, 2005 which denied claimant's motion for, inter alia, an order striking defendant's answer.

"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" (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). A reargument motion is not "a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (id.). Claimant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476; Foley v Roche, supra). Accordingly, claimant's motion for reargument is DENIED.


August 23, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims