New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AVNI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-030-568, Claim No. 115048, Motion No. M-75509


Synopsis


Motion to reargue or renew prior decision and order [M-74930] dismissing claim number 115048 denied

Case Information

UID:
2008-030-568
Claimant(s):
LIOR J. AVNI a/k/a LIOR AVNI, a disabled NY citizen acting Pro-se individually and as trustor and assignor of MHL 43 liabilities to his father DOV AVNI, after discovering frauds by NY Court of Claims and Attorney General 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):
115048
Motion number(s):
M-75509
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
LIOR J. 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 claimant’s motion for renewal or


reargument of the court’s prior decision and order:

1,2 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; 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 by Lior J. Avni and attached papers

  1. Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Renew and Reargue by Patricia M. Hingerton, Assistant Attorney General
4-6 Filed papers: Claim; Supplemental Claim; Avni v State of New York, UID # 2008-030-536, Claim No. 115048, Motion No. M-74930 (June 30, 2008, Scuccimarra, J.) and underlying papers

In Claim Number 115048, dismissed by the undersigned on June 30, 2008 [see Avni v State of New York, UID # 2008-030-536, Claim No. 115048, Motion No. M-74930 (June 30, 2008, Scuccimarra, J.)], Lior Avni alleged that Judge Lack’s March 6, 2007 Decision and Order, disposing of previous claims[1] filed by claimant and his father, Dov Avni, was somehow not “authentic” and a “false instrument” causing him harm. The initial two (2) pages of Claim Number 115048 referenced underlying issues claimant had concerning his retention at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center from May to November 2002, when he avers he should have been released in order to testify at civil proceedings held in Texas concerning his and his family’s financial interests. Supplementary papers filed by claimant purport to amend the claim, adding that attorneys from Mental Hygiene Legal Services, personnel from this Court, and the Attorney General’s Office, all somehow prevented his ability to perfect his appeal of earlier court rulings.

This Court dismissed Claim Number 115048 on June 30, 2008 as noted above. Such decision and order was served with notice of entry on or about August 4, 2008. Claimant now seeks 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 Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(d)(2). 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. Similarly, the papers submitted do not present any new facts. 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




[1].Claim No. 110105 was a claim by Lior’s parents, Dov and Tamar Avni, alleging false imprisonment, conspiracy to imprison, and medical malpractice arising from Lior’s retention at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center. It was dismissed by Decision and Order dated June 21, 2006. Claim No. 112938 was filed by Dov Avni alone alleging that because Lior was subjected to certain psychiatric conditions, he was unable to testify in a lawsuit. Claim No. 112944 was filed by Lior at approximately the same time as his father filed 112938, alleging the same factual predicates. The March 6, 2007 Decision and Order dismissed Claim Nos. 112938 and 112944.