New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALIK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-028-562, Claim Nos. 112250, 112655, 112640, 112865, 112866, 113091, Motion No. M-72996


Synopsis


Motion for reconsideration of an order denying application for reduction of filing fee is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-028-562
Claimant(s):
ABDUL-JABBOR MALIK
Claimant short name:
MALIK
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112250, 112655, 112640, 112865, 112866, 113091
Motion number(s):
M-72996
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
ABDUL-JABBOR MALIK, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Glenn C. King, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 16, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on Claimant's motion for reconsideration:


1. Letter/Affidavit of Abdul-Jabbor Malik, pro se, with annexed Exhibit


2. Letter of Glenn C. King, AAG


Filed papers: Claims; Answers

By this motion, Claimant applies for reconsideration of the Court’s several orders which denied, in whole or in part, his applications for reduction of the Court of Claims $50.00 filing fee in six different claims.[1] The State takes no position on this motion.

A motion for reargument (CPLR 2221[d]), is addressed to the discretion of the Court and is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied a controlling principle of law (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813 [2d Dept 1988]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558 [1st Dept 1979]). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651 [1891]; Matter of Mehta v Mehta, 196 AD2d 841, 842 [2d Dept 1993]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [1st Dept 1992]). A motion to renew (CPLR 2221[e]), must be based on “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]; Alexy v Stein, 16 AD3d 989 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190 [1st Dept 1987], lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [1988]) and a litigant seeking permission to renew must present a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]; Bansbach v Zinn, 20 AD3d 629 [3d Dept 2005]).

In support of the instant motion, Claimant references his inmate account balance, something that was considered in the initial determination of the application for reduction of a filing fee. He also sets out several arguments that could have been presented on the prior applications and, in any event, would not have changed the determinations that were made.

Accordingly, Claimant’s motion is DENIED.






July 16, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. Claim No. 112655, Order dated September 12, 2006; Claim No. 112865, Order dated October 26, 2006; Claim No. 112866, Order dated October 26, 2006: Claim No. 113091, Order dated December 19, 2006. Claim No. 112640 and Claim No. 112250 have already been dismissed.