Claimant moves for reargument of the Court’s Decision and Order, filed
September 22, 2008, which directed defendant to disclose any further documents
in its possession which are responsive to claimant’s request for documents
and denied claimant’s request for sanctions. A motion to reargue is
“made on the papers submitted on the original motion” (Phillips v
Village of Oriskany, 57 AD2d 110, 113 [4th Dept 1977]). Claimant has not
provided a copy of the challenged decision and order nor has he included
“the papers submitted on the original motion” in his motion to
Additionally, in determining a motion, the court may only consider documents
and exhibits which have been served upon all parties (CPLR 2214 [c]). Unless the
Attorney General has been served with a set of motion papers different than
those filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims, claimant has failed to serve
the papers submitted on the original motion on the Attorney General. Therefore,
the papers submitted on the original motion cannot be considered even if the
Court were to attempt to retrieve them from the Clerk of the Court of Claims,
which it has no obligation to do (Sheedy v Pataki, 236 AD2d 92, 97-98 [3d
Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 805 ).
Aside from these fatal procedural infirmities, “[i]t is well settled that
a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and is properly granted upon a showing that the court
overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly arrived at
its earlier decision” (Peak v Northway Travel Trailers Inc., 260
AD2d 840, 842 [3d Dept 1999]).
Claimant, in making his application to reargue, has not shown that the Court
“overlooked or misapprehended” the relevant facts or law in its
prior decision and order (see CPLR 2221 [d] ).
The claimant’s motion to reargue is denied. Claimant’s request that
the Court recuse itself is also denied.
Claimant’s most recent request, in his reply papers, that the Court order
defendant to bear the transportation and/or “video conferencing”
costs of proposed deponents is not properly before the Court, and is not being
addressed, as it “was improperly raised for the first time in [his] reply
[affirmation]” Willette v Willette, 53 AD3d 753, 755 [3d Dept