New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HYNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-040-051, , Motion No. M-73893


Synopsis


Motion to Reargue – Prisoner – Denied.

Case Information

UID:
2007-040-051
Claimant(s):
CHRIS HYNES #88A1221
Claimant short name:
HYNES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

Motion number(s):
M-73893
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
Chris Hynes, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 11, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Hynes’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a), for reargument of his prior motion for permission to serve and file a claim late pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6) (Hynes v State of New York, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-73450, filed August 2, 2007, McCarthy, J.) is denied.

By his prior motion, Movant sought permission to file a claim late. The proposed claim asserted four causes of action: (1) bailment; (2) improper search of Movant’s cell; (3) violation of rights at a disciplinary hearing; and (4) unlawful confinement. Regarding the bailment cause of action, the Court found that this portion of Movant’s motion was unnecessary as the time to serve and file such a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(9) had not yet expired. The Court granted the motion as to the causes of action alleging an improper cell search and unlawful confinement and denied the motion as to the cause of action alleging a violation of Movant’s rights at the disciplinary hearing. Based upon a review of the record, it was unclear to the Court what rights Movant believed were violated: State or Federal.

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 (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813 [2nd Dept 1988]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979], appeal after remand 86 AD2d 887 [2nd Dept 1982], appeal denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]). 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, 652 [1891]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992], lv dismissed in part, lv denied in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992], rearg denied 81 NY2d 782 [1993]). 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 (Foley v Roche, supra at 568).

As Mr. Hynes’ motion contains no new proof, the Court considers the motion to be one for reargument rather than renewal.

Upon a review of Movant’s motion papers, his affidavit in support of the motion, Defendant’s counsel’s affirmation in opposition and the Court’s decision upon the original motion, and upon due deliberation, Movant’s motion for reargument is denied because the Court finds that it properly applied the controlling principle of law and did not misapprehend the relevant facts.

The Court notes in passing that Claimant has failed to establish that the right he asserts was violated was a State Constitutional right over which this Court has jurisdiction. In addition, it appears to the Court that the issue he seeks to reargue – that the hearing officer had no authority to consider the charges such that the entire hearing should be invalidated – is already included in the unlawful confinement cause of action, which the Court has granted Claimant permission to late file.

Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Hynes’ motion is denied in its entirety.


October 11, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the motion for reargument:

Papers Numbered


Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support
and Exhibits Attached 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2