New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

AVNI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-030-569, Claim No. 115049, Motion No. M-75507


Synopsis


Motion to reargue or renew decision and order [M-74931] dismissing claim number 115049 denied.

Case Information

UID:
2008-030-569
Claimant(s):
DOV K. AVNI aka DOV AVNI aka DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY, acting pro se, individually and as assignee of all title, rights and interest to the claims assigned to him by 1/20/2008 by his disabled son L. (ANON.) and by his wife TAMAR AVNI, after discovering frauds by NY Court of Claims and NY Attorney General’s Cuomo’s in “disposing” of Claim #110105
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):
115049
Motion number(s):
M-75507
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:
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 then abate it until resolution of 3 TX Suits after 2 mandates were issued; 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 then abate it - until resolution of 3 TX Suits after 2 mandates were issued by Dov K. Avni; Affidavit in support 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, 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 # 2008-030-537, Claim No. 115049, Motion No. M-74931 (June 30, 2008, Scuccimarra, J.) and underlying papers

In Claim Number 115049, dismissed by the undersigned on June 30, 2008, Dov Avni and his wife, Tamar Avni, whose prior claim in this court was dismissed by Judge Lack [see Claim No. 110105] on June 21, 2006, alleged that Judge Lack’s dismissal was memorialized in a forged document, and that various State employees - including those employed by the Court of Claims, the Attorney General’s Office, and Mental Hygiene Legal Services - defrauded claimants into believing that such document was genuine.[1]

This Court dismissed Claim Number 115049 on June 30, 2008. [See Avni v State of New York, UID # 2008-030-537, Claim No. 115049, Motion No. M-74931 (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 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. No new facts are alleged. Accordingly, the motion to renew is also denied.

January 7, 2009
White Plains, New York

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




[1].
Supplementary documents to the claim dismissed herein repeated the accusations of forgery, and added the same allegations with respect to another Decision and Order issued by Judge Lack on March 6, 2007, dismissing Claim Nos. 112938 and 112944. Claim No. 112938 was also brought by Dov Avni, and Claim No. 112944 was brought by the claimants’ son, Lior Avni, whose hospitalization at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center in and about 2002, and an alleged deprivation of monetary recovery in a completely unrelated lawsuit in Texas, underlie all of these claims.