1. “Notice of Enyry [sic]” and statement of pro se Claimant sworn
to June 26, 2007,
with annexed Exhibit;
2. Opposing affidavit of Assistant Attorney General Richard B. Friedfertig
sworn to July
Filed papers: Claim filed April 24, 2002; Answer filed May 29, 2002; and
White v State of New York, Ct Cl, April 3, 2007, Moriarty, J., claim no.
105960, motion no. M-72739, UID #2007-037-017.
Claimant, a pro se inmate, filed and served a prolix claim asserting several
causes of action which allegedly occurred while Claimant was incarcerated at
Gowanda Correctional Facility. After issue was joined, Defendant subsequently
filed and served a motion to dismiss all but the bailment cause of action in the
claim, and requested an order compelling discovery and/or a preclusion order. In
the Court’s April 3, 2007 decision and order, all but the bailment and
unlawful confinement causes of action were dismissed, Claimant was ordered to
respond to Defendant’s discovery demands within sixty (60) days, and
Defendant’s motion for a preclusion order was denied. Claimant then filed
and served a “Notice of Enyry [sic],” a sworn statement entitled
“Decision and Order,” and an affidavit indicating service of a
“Notice of Intention to file a claim.” Defendant was unable to
decipher these documents and, indeed, the Court was equally perplexed. Because
there appears to be no other possible explanation for filing and serving these
documents, the Court has treated them as a motion for leave to renew or reargue
the Court’s April 3, 2007 decision and order.
A motion for reargument is addressed to the discretion of the Court and allows
a party the opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended
matters of fact or law (see CPLR Rule 2221[d] ). Its purpose is not, however,
to afford the unsuccessful party an opportunity to reargue the same issues
previously decided; nor does reargument afford the unsuccessful party the
opportunity to advance arguments different from those presented during the
original motion (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558 ). Claimant
has failed to indicate any fact or principle of law that the Court overlooked or
misapprehended to warrant reargument of the Court’s prior decision and
order. Thus, insofar as Claimant’s papers can be construed as a motion for
leave to reargue, they must be denied.
To the extent that Claimant’s present papers can be construed as a motion
for leave to renew, they must also be denied. A motion to renew is based on new
facts not offered on the original motion, or on a change in the law that would
alter the prior determination of the Court (CPLR Rule 2221 [e] ). Once again,
Claimant has failed to allege any new facts or to indicate any change in the law
that would warrant leave to renew the Court’s prior decision and order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Claimant’s papers insofar as they can be construed as
either a motion for leave to reargue or a motion for leave to renew the
Court’s prior decision and order, are denied in all respects.