New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TAFARI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-033-170, Claim Nos. 110571, 110660, Motion No. M-70764


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110571, 110660
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Injah E. Tafari, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Frederick H. McGown, III, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 15, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a motion of Injah E. Tafari (hereinafter “claimant”) to reargue this Court’s prior Decision and Order[1] (M-70030) which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss two claims of claimant (Claim Nos. 110571 and 110660). The first claim (Claim No. 110571) sought damages for the discontinuance of medical treatment by the defendant for a condition in claimant’s shoulder. In addition, claimant asks that the Court order that the treatments be continued. The other claim (Claim No. 110660) sought damages for cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment described is that in being housed in an area that has lights on 24 hours a day, that claimant is being deprived of a wash pail with hot water two times a day and that he is being handcuffed behind his back despite a shoulder problem. In addition to compensatory damages, claimant asked this Court to order the Correctional Facility to remedy these situations.

The Court dismissed the claims because the real relief sought was of an equitable nature not compensatory damages.

According to CPLR 2221:
(d) A motion for leave to reargue:

1. shall be identified specifically as such;

2. 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; and

3. shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry. This rule shall not apply to motions to reargue a decision made by the appellate division or the court of appeals.

In reviewing claimant’s papers, the relief sought by claimant is the continuation of prior medical treatments claimant received, not compensation for missed treatment. The Court of Claims is not a court to seek equitable relief against the State of New York, but rather to seek damages for the torts by its employees, agents and officers. This Court is not empowered to direct the medical resources of the defendant for claimant.

Accordingly, this Court denies claimant’s application.

March 15, 2006
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].The following papers have been read and considered on claimant’s motion: Notice of Motion dated September 20, 2005 and filed September 29, 2005; “Affidavit” in Support of Motion for Reargument, and/or Reconsideration of Injah E. Tafari dated September 20, 2005 and filed September 29, 2005; Affirmation in Opposition of Frederick H. McGown, III, Esq. dated October 6, 2005 and filed October 11, 2005.