New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-045-009, Claim No. 110190, Motion No. M-74304


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-045-009
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110190
Motion number(s):
M-74304
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
February 20, 2008
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant’s Notice of Motion, Claimant’s Affirmation in Support, Claimant’s Memorandum of Law and Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition.

Claimant, Shawn Green, a pro se inmate, has brought this motion pursuant to CPLR 2221[d][2] seeking to reargue this Court’s prior Decision and Order which denied his application for summary judgment (Green v State of New York, M-73617, filed November 20, 2007).

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 the controlling principle of law (see CPLR 2221[d][2]). It does not serve to provide a party an opportunity to reargue the same issues previously decided nor does it serve to provide a party the opportunity to advance arguments different from those presented in the original motion (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]).

Claimant’s papers do not establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any facts or principles of law. The Court carefully considered all of claimant’s legal theories and exhibits presented in his original motion prior to rendering the November 20, 2007 Decision and Order. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant’s motion to reargue is denied.


February 20, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

HON. GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims