New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AVNI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-030-567, Claim No. 115050, Motion No. M-75508


Synopsis


Motion to reargue or renew prior decision and order [M-74932] dismissing claim number 115050 denied

Case Information

UID:
2008-030-567
Claimant(s):
DOV K. AVNI aka DOV AVNI aka DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY, acting pro se, individually and as trustee + assignee of MHL 43 liabilities of his son LIOR AVNI after discovering frauds by NY Court of Claims and Attorney General’s Cuomo’s Office in alleged “final disposition” of Claims #112938 and #112944
Claimant short name:
AVNI
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115050
Motion number(s):
M-75508
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
DOV K. AVNI, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: PATRICIA M. HINGERTON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 20, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimants’ motion for renewal or


reargument of the court’s prior decision and order:

1-3 Claimant’s Notice of Motion to take judicial notice of court and case records and undisputable, easily verifiable facts and renew its decision and order of 6/30/08 (notice of its entry received 8/9/08) that dismissed this claim for want of cause and for leave to reargue judicial errors and reinstate claim subject to abatement due to TX suits; Claimant’s Original Motion to take judicial notice of court and case records and undisputable, easily verifiable facts and renew its decision and order of 6/30/08 (notice of its entry received 8/9/08) that dismissed this claim for want of cause and for leave to reargue judicial errors and reinstate claim subject to abatement due to TX suits by Dov K. Avni; Affidavit supporting motion to take judicial notice of court and case records and undisputable, easily verifiable facts and renew its decision and order of 6/30/08 (notice of its entry received 8/9/08) that dismissed this claim for want of cause and for leave to reargue judicial errors and reinstate claim by Dov K. Avni; and attached papers

  1. Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Renew and Reargue by Patricia M. Hingerton, Assistant Attorney General
5-7 Filed papers: Claim; Supplemental Claim; Avni v State of New York, UID # 2008-030-538, Claim No. 115050, Motion No. M-74932 (June 30, 2008, Scuccimarra, J.) and underlying papers


Claimants allege in the claim dismissed by the undersigned [Claim No. 115050] that a prior Decision and Order of Judge Lack dated March 6, 2007, dismissing claim numbers 112938 and 112944 was a forged instrument, and that various State employees defrauded Mr. Avni into believing that Judge Lack’s decision was genuine. This court dismissed Claim Number 115050 on June 30, 2008. [See Avni v State of New York, UID # 2008-030-538, Claim No. 115050, Motion No. M-74932 (June 30, 2008, Scuccimarra, J.)]. Such decision and order was served with notice of entry on or about August 4, 2008. Claimants now seek reargument and or renewal of this court’s prior decision and order dismissing the claim.

“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 any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided . . . (citations omitted). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application.” Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 (1st Dept 1979); Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729, 730 (3d Dept 2005); see §2221(d)(2) Civil Practice Law and Rules. Additionally, such a motion should be brought within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, or in any event prior to the entry of any judgment by the appellate court to which an appeal has been taken. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(3).

A renewal motion asks the Court to consider new facts not previously offered that would change the earlier determination, or a change in the law that would change the prior determination. Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e). With respect to new facts, however, the motion should contain “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.” Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e)(3); see Stocklas v Auto Solutions of Glenville, Inc., 9 AD3d 622, 625 (3d Dept 2004).

The papers submitted do not establish that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law; therefore the motion for reargument is denied. What “new facts” are alleged, are additional assertions that this court’s June 30, 2008 decision and order is a forgery. Accordingly, the motion to renew is also denied.




October 20, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims