New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AVNI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-033-225, Claim No. 110105, Motion No. M-72064


Case Information

DOV AVNI a/k/a DOV K. AVNI, individually and as assignee of all rights, title and interest to the claims of his mentally ill son L. (Anonymous), and his wife, TAMAR AVNI, all Nassau County residents
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

James J. Lack
Claimant’s attorney:
Dov Avni a/k/a Dov K. Avni, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Patricia M. Hingerton, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 29, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim by Dov Avni a/k/a Dov K. Avni (hereinafter “claimant”) individually and as assignee of all rights, title, and interest to the claims of his mentally ill son, L. (Anonymous), and his wife, Tamar Avni. The claim is based upon the retention of L. at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center (hereinafter “Pilgrim”) in May 2002 and continuing until November 2002. The causes of action alleged by claimant are false imprisonment, conspiracy to imprison, and medical malpractice.

Claimants now move this Court, pursuant to CPLR 2221, to reargue this Court’s prior Decision dated June 21, 2006 (M-71198, CM-71260, CM-71348)[1].

According to CPLR 2221(d), a motion 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.

After sifting through irrelevant ramblings of claimants regarding environmental contaminations of a car wash and claimants’ legal dealings in Texas, the Court was able to find no compelling argument to show that this Court overlooked or misapprehended relevant facts or misapplied the law in the previous motions. Claimants correctly state that allegations should be taken in a light most favorable to them when the Court considered the previous motions. However, in doing so, the Court does not have to abandon its senses of reason and logic. The Court need not accept statements which are inherently incredible or contradicted by documentary evidence (Maas v Cornell University, 94 NY2d 87). The Court finds no basis to grant claimants’ motion to reargue.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies claimants’ motion to reargue.

December 29, 2006
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].The following papers have been read and considered on claimants’ motion: Notice of Motion dated July 28, 2006 and filed July 31, 2006; Affidavit of Claimant/Affiant Dov Avni with annexed Exhibits sworn to July 27, 2006 and filed July 31, 2006; Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant’s Reargument Motion of Patricia M. Hingerton, Esq. dated September 5, 2006 and filed September 7, 2006; Initial Reply Affidavit in Opposition of Dov Avni with annexed Exhibits sworn to September 9, 2006 and filed September 11, 2006;