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
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
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.