New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TAFARI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-019-591, Claim No. 102137, Motion No. M-70997


Synopsis


Claimant's post trial motion for reargument is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-019-591
Claimant(s):
INJAH TAFARI
Claimant short name:
TAFARI
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102137
Motion number(s):
M-70997
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
INJAH TAFARI, 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:
December 22, 2005
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 for leave to reargue this court's Decision, following trial, which resulted in the dismissal of this claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.


A trial of this claim was held on September 27, 2005 at the Elmira Correctional Facility. This court dismissed the claim due to claimant's failure to establish a prima facie case of negligent medical care following his alleged assault by prison officials on April 24, 1999. (Tafari v State of New York, Ct Cl, October 5, 2005, Lebous, J., Claim No. 102137). Now, claimant seeks leave to reargue said Decision by way of a post-trial motion under CPLR 2221.


Initially, the court notes that claimant's reliance on CPLR 2221 is mistaken. CPLR 2221 governs motions to renew or reargue, relating to previous motions, not trial decisions. Rather, claimant should have sought post-trial relief using CPLR 4404 (b) which governs post-trial motions involving non-jury trials. (Dawes v State of New York, 194 Misc 2d 617).



In any event, even were this court to deem this motion to have been made under the proper CPLR section, the application would still be denied. In the first instance, a CPLR 4404 (b) motion is required to be made within fifteen days after decision. (CPLR 4405). The Decision in this matter was dated October 5, 2005, and claimant's motion was filed on December 1, 2005 and, as such, would be untimely. (Arlen of Nanuet v State of New York, 52 Misc 2d 1009). Furthermore, relief pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) is addressed to the discretion of the court. (Carney v Carney, 236 AD2d 574, 575). The only argument contained in claimant's moving papers is a conclusory reference to res ipsa loquitur. In the court's view, even assuming that claimant had properly made a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), he has failed to demonstrate that this court should set aside its prior Decision.


For all of the foregoing reasons, claimant's post-trial motion for leave to reargue, Motion No. M-70997, is DENIED.




December 22, 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 March 16, 2000.
  2. DECISION, Lebous, J., Claim No. 102137, filed October 18, 2005.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-70997, dated October 31, 2005, and filed December 1, 2005.
  4. Affidavit of Injah Tafari, in support of motion, dated October 31, 2005.
  5. Affirmation of Geoffrey B. Rossi, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated December 14, 2005 and filed December 16, 2005.