New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-028-564, Claim No. N/A, Motion No. M-72143


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2007-028-564
Claimant(s):
LOUIS ROMAN
Claimant short name:
ROMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
N/A
Motion number(s):
M-72143
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant’s attorney:
LOUIS ROMAN, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Paul F. Cagino, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 30, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Movant seeks to reargue or renew his previous unsuccessful motion for permission to file a late claim (Roman v State of New York, M-68344, filed December 8, 2004, Hard, J.). His proposed Claim sought compensation for lost wages and other injuries arising from the period of time he spent in the Albany County Correctional Facility. In the previous Decision and Order, the Court found that nothing stated in movant’s papers arguably established a connection between the events giving rise to the application and the State of New York as a defendant.

The Court further noted that even if the Certificate of Disposition did, in fact, relate to movant’s arrest in 2002 and his subsequent incarceration, the only possible cause of action in this Court would be one for unjust conviction pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b, an action which could not be maintained because movant had never been convicted.[1]

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 the controlling principle of law (see 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 (see Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651 [1891]; Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [1st Dept 1992]). If such a motion contains new proof, it is a "renewal" motion, rather than a "reargument" motion, and should be treated as such (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but which were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and which, therefore, were not made known to the Court (see Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190 [1st Dept 1987], appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [1988]).

To the extent movant’s papers are deemed an application to reargue, they are untimely (CPLR 2221 [d] [3]) and do not demonstrate that the Court misapprehended the law or facts pertaining to the application. To the extent his motion is premised upon new information and could be construed as a motion to renew (see CPLR 2221 [e]), the Court notes that the papers do not present the required “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]) and are, consequently, deficient in that manner (see e.g. 1009 Second Ave. Assoc. v Benenson Capital Co., 272 AD2d 254 [1st Dept 2000]; Guerrero v Dublin Up Corp. of N.Y., 260 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1999]; Matter of Shapiro v State of New York, 259 AD2d 753 [2d Dept 1999]). In any event, given the reasoning of the Court’s initial decision, the additional material would not change its ultimate disposition.

Accordingly, upon a review of movant’s motion papers and the Court's Decision and Order upon the original application, and upon due deliberation, the motion for reargument or renewal is DENIED.


July 30, 2007
Albany, New York

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


Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Luis Roman, pro se, with annexed Exhibits;

2. Letter of Opposition of Paul F. Cagino, AAG.


[1]. In connection with the instant motion, movant confirms that the Certificate of Disposition pertained to the criminal charges underlying his earlier application.