New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-029, Claim No. 113099, Motion No. M-74533


Synopsis


Inmate's motion to reargue motion for sanctions was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-015-029
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113099
Motion number(s):
M-74533
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 14, 2008
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves to reargue his prior motion which sought monetary sanctions for defendant’s alleged failure to properly respond to certain interrogatories. The motion is denied. It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR Rule 2221 [d] [2]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [1995]). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]).

The claimant has failed to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law. Although the claimant urges his entitlement to a monetary sanction due to the defendant’s delay in responding to his interrogatories, such a sanction is inappropriate under the circumstances of this case (cf. Wolford v Cerrone, 184 AD2d 833 [1992]; Renford v Lizardo, 104 AD2d 717 [1984]). Moreover, claimant moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 and not 22 NYCRR § 206.20, which incorporates the standard for the imposition of sanctions for frivolous conduct embodied in Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. Claimant’s contrary argument notwithstanding, the imposition of a sanction under CPLR 3126 is authorized only where a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . ” (CPLR 3126). No such conduct by the defendant is apparent in this case.

Accordingly, the claimant’s motion is denied.



April 14, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Motion for reargument dated February 5, 2008;
  2. Affidavit of Shawn Green sworn to February 5, 2008;
  3. Memorandum of Law of Shawn Green dated February 5, 2008;
  4. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich dated February 20, 2008;
  5. Reply of Shawn Green sworn to March 4, 2008.