New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LOPEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-546, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-70212


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for renewal/reconsideration is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-546
Claimant(s):
HECTOR LOPEZ
Claimant short name:
LOPEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-70212
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
HECTOR LOPEZ, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Geoffrey B. Rossi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 30, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for renewal/reconsideration of this court's prior denial of his application to file a late claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

This court previously denied claimant's application to file a late claim in relation to a bailment cause of action. More specifically, this court noted that it did not have the authority to consider a late filing application in connection with a bailment claim citing the Fourth Department holding in Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000. (Lopez v State of New York, Ct Cl, March 28, 2005, Lebous, J., Claim No. none, Motion No. M-69720 [UID No. 2005-019-522]).[1]


By way of this motion, claimant seeks to convince this court that his proposed claim sounds in negligence and not bailment and, as such, is not prohibited. It is well-settled that a motion to renew 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 material change in the law that would change the prior determination. (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Here, there has been no material change in the law nor has claimant offered any new facts which would alter this court's view of the underlying theory of liability, namely a bailment claim. This court properly determined that the proposed claim was bailment in nature since it related to claimant's stolen pair of sneakers.


To the extent that claimant's motion may be deemed a motion for reargument it must fail as well. A motion to reargue is merely "[d]esigned to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (CPLR 2221 [d]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). Such motions are not casually granted since it is 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). Here, claimant offers nothing indicating the court overlooked any facts or law originally presented that warrants reargument of this court's prior Decision and Order.


Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for renewal/reconsideration, Motion No. M-70212, is DENIED.


June 30, 2005
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:

  1. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-69720, filed April 7, 2005.
  2. Notice of Motion No. M-70212, sworn to May 16, 2005, and filed May 31, 2005.
  3. Affidavit of Hector Lopez, in support of motion, sworn to May 16, 2005, with attachments.
  4. Affirmation of Geoffrey B. Rossi, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated June 22, 2005, and filed June 24, 2005.

[1]Selected unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at