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