New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WEBB v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-028-571, Claim No. 106035, Motion No. M-70285


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-028-571
Claimant(s):
CATHERINE JANE WEBB
Claimant short name:
WEBB
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106035
Motion number(s):
M-70285
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
CATHERINE JANE WEBB, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Ellen Matowik, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 4, 2005
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In reaching its decision, the Court has read and considered the following papers:


(1) Notice of Motion, undated, filed on June 6, 2005 with attachments;


(2) Affirmation of Ellen Matowik, dated July 14, 2005 and filed on July 18, 2005, together with Exhibit "A";


(3) "Claim" (treated as responsive paper) undated and filed August 10, 2005.

The Claim herein was, inter alia, for false arrest, excessive use of force, and improper training of court officers. The Claim resulted from an altercation that occurred in the Bronx Criminal Court on May 8, 2001. The Claim had been prepared by the law firm known as Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C. The firm was relieved as counsel by Decision and Order of Presiding Judge Susan Phillips Read, filed December 30, 2002. Judge Read's Decision and Order gave the Claimant sixty days to obtain new counsel and indicated that if new counsel did not appear within that time frame, a ninety day conditional Order would be issued. An Order to that effect was issued by Judge Richard E. Sise on April 8, 2003. Thereafter, on November 16, 2004 a final Order of Dismissal was entered. On December 13, 2004 the Claimant sought to "reopen" the claim. That application was denied on March 9, 2005 by a Decision and Order of Presiding Judge Richard E. Sise.

The present Motion appears to seek reargument and/or renewal of that Decision and Order.

After reviewing the supporting letter annexed to the Motion, it appears that the Claimant is attempting to submit "new" information to excuse her past failure. Furthermore, the application was brought more than thirty days after the prior Decision and Order of the Court and would, therefore, be untimely. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v Bero Construction Corp., 29 AD2d 627 (4th Dept 1967). Based upon the above, the Court treats Claimant's application as one to renew.

Claimant has failed to allege that the "new" facts were unavailable when the original Motion was argued. In fact, much of the material contained in the papers was previously available and has been before the Court (see Ribadeneyra v Gap, Inc., 287 AD2d 362 [1st Dept 2001]).

After reviewing the papers annexed to the application, as well as the application itself, the Court denies the Motion.


November 4, 2005
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims