Claimant has brought this motion seeking permission to reargue a prior
determination of this
Court. In a second notice of motion included with the motion papers, claimant
has also requested
that this Court issue an order “To Settle this Claim for the Amount
Determined by this Court in the
Amount of $323.11".
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this
Notice of Motion (2), Affidavit in Support 1,2,3
Copies of Certified Mail Receipt Documents (various dates) submitted by
Reply Affirmation, with Exhibits 5
In a prior Decision and Order
, this Court
denied claimant’s application for a default judgment on this bailment
claim, as well as for poor person relief. In that Decision and Order this Court
found that defendant had timely served its answer to the claim, and also
determined that claimant was not entitled to poor person relief under the facts
and circumstances of this claim.
As can best be determined from an examination of the papers submitted by
claimant on this motion, claimant now seeks permission to reargue these
determinations, and, in essence, also apparently seeks summary judgment in the
amount of $323.11, the amount requested in his
In support of his motion, claimant
has submitted copies of certified mail receipts from the U.S. Postal Service,
and has referred to those mailings in his supporting affidavit.
Pursuant to CPLR Rule 2221(d)(2), a motion seeking leave to reargue must
“be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or
misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion”.
In this particular matter, claimant has not even addressed the prior ruling by
this Court that defendant had timely submitted its answer to this claim, nor has
he addressed in any manner whatsoever the Court’s prior determination
denying his application for poor person relief. In sum, claimant has not
presented any evidence, nor has he even made any allegations, that this Court
overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law in its prior Decision and
Finally, with respect to what this Court has deemed to be claimant’s
application for summary judgment (as set forth in his second notice of motion),
claimant has not presented any evidence in this application either to establish
the State’s liability on this bailment claim, or to the value of his lost
property, and therefore he is not entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-72129 is hereby DENIED in its entirety.
. In yet another Decision and Order on this
claim (see Decision and Order, Brown v State of New York
, Ct Cl, February
23, 2005, Midey, J., Claim No. 110036, Motion No. M-69459, (UID #2005-009-010),
this Court denied a pre-answer motion to dismiss by the defendant, but did limit
claimant’s proof to those items of personal property that had been
previously listed in his institutional claim, which this Court determined to be