New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SCOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-030-574, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-71874


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to reconsider, treated as one for reargument, is denied. Papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principal of law

Case Information

UID:
2006-030-574
Claimant(s):
ALLEN ROGERS SCOTT
Claimant short name:
SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
NONE
Motion number(s):
M-71874
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
ALLEN ROGERS SCOTT, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEANE L. STRICKLAND SMITH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 11, 2006
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read and considered on Claimant’s motion:

1,2 “Order to Show Cause and Jury Trial” by Allen Rogers Scott, Claimant; Affidavit of Service

  1. Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Reargue by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
4-6 Filed Papers: Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-71022, Decision and Order (Scuccimarra, J., May 15, 2006), and underlying papers; Scott v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-70102, Decision and Order (Scuccimarra, J., September 9, 2005), and underlying papers; Scott v State of New York, Claim No. 100313; Motion No. M-60600 (McNamara, J., January 6, 2000).

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

The present motion appears to ask that the Court reconsider its prior decisions - including a prior denial of a motion to reargue - or asks that the Court and the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the motion be found “at fault” or otherwise involved in a conspiracy to “DEFRAUD SWINDLE of filing claimant meritorious claim.” [¶¶ 1, 2 Order to Show Cause]. Other than perceiving and maintaining - as he had in prior motion practice - that the Court and the Assistant Attorney General have somehow unlawfully prevented claimant from pursuing his claim, Mr. Scott has not presented anything new with regard to any potential negligence and/or medical malpractice claim associated with a vehicular accident involving a private citizen and a correctional facility van. Notably, the prior decision on an application to reargue was filed on May 15, 2006 and served with notice of entry upon Mr. Scott on May 31, 2006. [Affirmation in Opposition by Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Exhibit D].

“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); Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729, 730 (3d Dept 2005); 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).

A renewal motion asks the Court to consider new facts not previously offered that would change the earlier determination, or a change in the law that would change the prior determination. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e). With respect to new facts, however, the motion should contain “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.” Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e)(3); see Stocklas v Auto Solutions of Glenville, Inc., 9 AD3d 622, 625 (3d Dept 2004).

The papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore the motion for reargument is denied. Similarly, the papers submitted do not present any new facts or any rationale for the failure to present information earlier. Accordingly, the motion to renew is also denied.

Claimant’s motion [M-71874] is in all respects denied.

October 11, 2006
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims