New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAMOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-570, Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-70621


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to reargue is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-570
Claimant(s):
FRANCISCO RAMOS
Claimant short name:
RAMOS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109707
Motion number(s):
M-70621
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
FRANCISCO RAMOS, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 19, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for reargument of the portion of this court's prior Decision and Order denying his motion to amend this claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant previously moved to amend this claim by expanding the factual allegations pertaining to the two original causes of action sounding in bailment and assault, as well as by adding a third and fourth cause of action alleging medical negligence and medical malpractice. This court granted claimant's request to expand the factual allegations pertaining to the two original causes of action, but denied claimant's motion to add a new third and fourth cause of action. (Ramos v State of New York, Ct Cl, July 6, 2005, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-69978 [UID No. 2005 -019-548]).[1] By way of this motion, claimant seeks to reargue his motion relative to the denial to amend this claim with a third and fourth cause of action.


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 reargument, Motion No. M-70621, is DENIED.


September 19, 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. Claim, filed August 9, 2004.
  2. DECISION AND ORDER, Lebous, J., Claim No. 109707, Motion No. M-69978, filed July 26, 2005.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-70621, dated August 22, 2005, and filed August 29, 2005.
  4. Affidavit of Francisco Ramos, in support of motion, sworn to August 22, 2005.
  5. Memorandum of Law, in support of motion, dated August 22, 2005.
  6. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated September 8, 2005, and filed September 12, 2005, with attached exhibit.

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