New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BARNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-017, Claim No. 110136, Motion No. M-70989


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-017
Claimant(s):
JOHN BARNES
Claimant short name:
BARNES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110136
Motion number(s):
M-70989
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
John Barnes, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Michael C. Rizzo, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 6, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant moves this Court for leave to reargue and renew his prior motion seeking summary judgment on his claim. Defendant opposes this relief.


In February 2004, claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus in Supreme Court, Franklin County alleging, inter alia, denial of proper medical and mental health treatment. Thereafter, in November 2004, claimant filed this claim alleging that certain records, including medical, dental and mental health records were released without his authorization. In moving for summary judgment, claimant failed to include adequate submissions with respect to his damages and the Court denied the motion.

A motion seeking leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination * * * and * * * shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR Rule 2221[e] [2] [3]; see Stocklas v Auto Solutions of Glenville, Inc, 9 AD3d 622, 625 [3d Dept 2004]). A motion to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion" (CPLR Rule 2221 [d] [2]).

Claimant fails to offer any new facts on this motion and, therefore, renewal is not warranted. Further, the Court is unpersuaded by claimant's argument that reargument is necessary because the Court overlooked the fact that his correctional facility provided the Attorney General claimant's entire medical file. The Court is aware that claimant's entire file was released, but the Court does not have sufficient facts to ascertain claimant's damages. Accordingly, summary judgment was, and remains, inappropriate.

Accordingly, M-70989 is denied.



March 6, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motions filed November 30, 2005;

2. "Affidavit" of John Barnes dated November 22, 2005; Exhibits A-B annexed;

3. Affirmation of Michael C. Rizzo filed December 13, 2005.