New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MALIK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-038-598, Claim No. 113091, Motion No. M-74977


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion for reconsideration of decision following damages trial improperly brought pursuant to CPLR 2221. Considered as a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b), the motion was denied as without merit.

Case Information

UID:
2008-038-598
Claimant(s):
ABDUL-JABBOR MALIK
Claimant short name:
MALIK
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113091
Motion number(s):
M-74977
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
ABDUL-JABBOR MALIK, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 6, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Following a trial on damages flowing from defendant’s wrongful confinement of claimant for a six-day period, this Court filed a decision May 13, 2008 awarding claimant damages in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00). In accordance with the Court’s decision, a judgment was filed on May 20, 2008. Claimant now moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 for reconsideration of that decision. Claimant essentially contends that the Court failed to appreciate certain factors which should have entitled him to a larger damages award. Claimant’s motion brought pursuant to CPLR 2221 is procedurally defective because claimant seeks review of a decision after trial, not a motion (see Smith v State of New York, UID # 2007-038-553, Claim No. 107568, Motion No. M-73609, DeBow, J., Aug. 2, 2007). The motion would be properly asserted as one pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) (compare CPLR 5015 [2]), and, because defendant will not suffer any prejudice, the Court will consider it as such.

CPLR 4404(b) provides: “After a trial not triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside its decision or any judgment entered thereon. It may make new findings of fact or conclusions of law, with or without taking additional testimony, render a new decision and direct entry of judgment, or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue.” Whether or not to set aside a decision or judgment is a matter within the discretion of the court (see Matter of Esterle v Dellay, 281 AD2d 722, 724 [3d Dept 2001]; Carney v Carney, 236 AD2d 574 [2d Dept 1997]; Smith v State of New York, supra).

Claimant’s submission does not warrant such an exercise of discretion in his favor. In rendering its decision, the Court was presented with evidence at the damages trial, considered the arguments made thereupon, reviewed the pertinent law, and gave further careful consideration to the evidence in light of the law. Claimant’s arguments in support of the instant motion do not persuade the Court that its decision was erroneous or otherwise improper, and thus his motion will be denied. If claimant continues to believe that the award of damages in this case is insufficient, he may elect to take a direct appeal to the Appellate Division. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-74977 is DENIED.

June 6, 2008
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers considered:


(1) Notice of Motion by CPLR 2221, dated May 18, 2008, returnable June 4, 2008;

(2) Affirmation in Support of Notice of Motion for Damage Liability Reconsideration of

Monetary Fund of Abdul-Jabbor Malik, undated;

(3) Affirmation in Opposition of Michael T. Krenrich, AAG, dated May 30, 2008.