New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HARRIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-030-520, Claim No. 106085, Motion No. M-69597


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2005-030-520
Claimant(s):
GEORGE HARRIS
Claimant short name:
HARRIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106085
Motion number(s):
M-69597
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
GEORGE HARRIS, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: JEANE L. STRICKLAND SMITH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 1, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers[1], numbered 1 to 6, were read and considered on Claimant's motion for an Order, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §3211, dismissing defenses:
1,2 Notice of Motion; Affidavit by George Harris, Claimant

  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibit
4-6 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer; Decision and Order, Harris v State of New York, Claim No. 106085, Motion No. M-68415 (Scuccimarra, J., August 12, 2004).

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

George Harris, the Claimant herein, alleges in Claim Number 106085 that Defendant's agents negligently failed to provide him with adequate mental health screening and associated care while he was in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (hereafter DOCS). In addition to general denials, in its Answer the Defendant asserts nine defenses, including Claimant's alleged culpable conduct, immunity for privileged discretionary determinations, assumption of risk, failure to state a cause of action, lack of jurisdiction due to lack of compliance with Court of Claims Act §11 requirements for the descriptive contents of a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of jurisdiction over any cause of action based upon alleged violations of federal constitutional claims, and a failure to mitigate damages.

In a prior Decision and Order filed on August 12, 2004 this Court already reviewed and decided a similar motion to strike defenses, noting, as remains true today, that there has been little to no discovery on this claim, and that Claimant had not shown how any defenses asserted lack merit or are otherwise deficient.

In the present motion, what Claimant is actually doing is asking to reargue issues already decided. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(a) and (d). Accordingly, and however Claimant has entitled this motion, it shall be treated as a motion for reargument and decided accordingly.

"[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. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided . . . (citations omitted). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application." Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 (1st Dept 1979); See Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(2). Additionally, such a motion should be brought within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, or in any event prior to the entry of any judgment by the appellate court to which an appeal has been taken. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(3); See Bray v Gluck, 235 AD2d 72 (3d Dept 1997), lv dismissed, 91 NY2d 1002 (1998).

Treated as a motion to reargue the prior decision, the papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore the motion for reargument is denied.

Accordingly, Motion number M-69597 is in all respects denied.

April 1, 2005
White Plains, New York
HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] An additional Reply Affidavit by Claimant, received three (3) weeks after the return date of the motion, has not been considered.