New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEDINA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-044-599, Claim Nos. 109170, 111093, Motion No. M-74116


Synopsis


Court denied inmate claimant’s motion to reargue Court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery responses in two different claims.

Case Information

UID:
2007-044-599
Claimant(s):
ANTHONY MEDINA
Claimant short name:
MEDINA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109170, 111093
Motion number(s):
M-74116
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Claimant’s attorney:
ANTHONY MEDINA, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 24, 2007
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, previously moved (in Motion No. M-73845) to compel responses to discovery demands served in three separate actions (Claim Nos. 109170, 110990 and 111093) pending against defendant State of New York (defendant). The Court found that defendant’s responses were adequate and that claimant would be provided copies of the requested documents upon his payment of the requisite photocopying fees (Medina v State of New York, Ct Cl, Sept. 27, 2007, Schaewe, J., Claim Nos. 109170, 110990, 111093, Motion No. M-73845). Accordingly, the Court denied Motion No. M-73845 in its entirety. Claimant now moves for reargument.[1] Defendant opposes the motion. Claimant contends that his discovery demands requested only the opportunity to inspect the documents so he could determine which document(s), if any, he wanted to copy.[2] Claimant argues that he would then obtain a copy of the document at the correctional facility at the price of $0.08 per page, rather than pay defendant $0.25 per page. Claimant also requests that defendant identify each page by date, content, and author prior to claimant’s inspection of the documents.

Defendant contends that claimant has failed to establish how the Court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law. Defendant also argues that claimant also did not set forth any new or different evidence.

Defendant’s position is correct. The Court found in its previous decision that claimant misinterpreted defendant’s responses to his demands when he believed that defendant was advising him to make a request under the Freedom of Information Law. Claimant has not established that the Court misapprehended any relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Further, claimant’s argument, that the Court erred by requiring him to make a blanket purchase of the requested documents rather than directing defendant to allow him to inspect the documents prior to copying them, was not raised in the initial motion papers.[3] Because a motion for leave to reargue is not designed to afford an unsuccessful party another opportunity to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those initially asserted (Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865 [1993]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1979]), reargument is not available in this case. Accordingly, claimant’s Motion No. M-74116 is denied (CPLR 2221[d] [2]; see generally Foley v Roche, supra).

December 24, 2007
Binghamton, New York

HON. CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims


The following papers were read on claimant’s motion:

1) Notice of Motion filed on October 15, 2007; Affidavit of Anthony Medina sworn to on October 5, 2007, and attached exhibits.

2) Affirmation in Opposition of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, dated November 1, 2007, and attached Exhibit A.

Claim No. 109170 filed on April 9, 2004; Verified Answer to Claim No. 109170 filed on May 13, 2004; Claim No. 111093 filed on July 1, 2005; Verified Answer to Claim No. 111093 filed on August 3, 2005.

[1]. Claimant also filed a notice of appeal of that Decision and Order on October 15, 2007.
[2]. Claimant is limiting this motion to reargue to Claim Nos. 109170 and 111093, as he states that he no longer seeks production of those documents requested in the discovery demands pertaining to Claim No. 110990.
[3]. In his reply, claimant briefly stated that he was able to make copies at his facility for $0.08 per page. However, he did not advance the argument that he should be allowed to inspect the documents and thereafter make copies at that price.