New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-010-041, Claim No. 110035, Motion No. M-73689


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to renew is denied. Claimant had not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law.

Case Information

UID:
2007-010-041
Claimant(s):
MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD
Claimant short name:
MOHAMMAD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110035
Motion number(s):
M-73689
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
MOHAMMAD MOHAMMADPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 17, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant’s motion to renew:
Claimant’s Letter Dated June 12, 2007.....................................................................1

Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibit.....................................................................2

Claimant seeks leave to renew this Court’s Decision filed-stamped May 29, 2007 which dismissed Claim No. 110035 based upon claimant’s failure to establish proper service of the claim despite numerous adjournments to enable claimant to provide the Court with proof of service. Claimant argues that the Court did not consider the letter submitted on his behalf by an attorney along with claimant’s inmate account records and the argument that the New York State Department of Correctional Services may have delayed mailing claimant’s Notice of Intention until claimant had sufficient funds in his account.

It is noted that, in reaching its Decision on Claim No. 110035, the Court expressly referred to claimant’s argument and his records. Claimant’s moving papers merely restate the arguments previously made to the Court.

To the extent that claimant’s motion may be characterized as one for renewal, “[a]n application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court” (see Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476, 477). Here, claimant offers no new facts; accordingly his renewal application is DENIED.

To the extent that claimant’s motion is one for reargument, “[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” (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). A reargument motion is not “a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided” (id.). Claimant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Mangine v Keller, supra; Foley v Roche, supra). Accordingly, claimant’s motion for reargument is DENIED.

Claimant is cautioned that frivolous motions, such as this, are a waste of judicial time and resources and could subject claimant to sanctions.


August 17, 2007
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims