New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEDINA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-045-034, Claim No. 114230, Motion No. M-75113


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Anthony Medina, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 16, 2008

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant’s Notice of Motion, Claimant’s Affidavit in Support with annexed Exhibits A-C and Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition. Claimant, Anthony Medina, a pro se inmate, has brought this motion pursuant to CPLR

2221[d][2] seeking to reargue that portion of this court’s Decision and Order filed on May 22, 2008 which concerned motion M-74475[1]. Defendant, the State of New York, opposes the motion.

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]).

In the May 22, 2008 Decision and Order this court denied claimant’s request for summary judgment. Claimant argues that prior to rendering the May 22, 2008 Decision and Order the Court failed to take into consideration his reply papers entitled “Claimant’s Reply to Defendant’s Answer Opposing his Motion for Summary Judgment” with annexed documents. Claimant has submitted copies of his disbursement requests dated February 9, 2008 as proof of his mailing of his reply papers to the Court of Claims Clerk’s Office as well as the Attorney General’s Office. Defendant has failed to deny its receipt of claimant’s reply papers. Additionally, after a review of the Court’s records, it appears as if the Court of Claims Clerk’s office inadvertently returned the reply papers to claimant instead of forwarding the papers to chambers. Thus, the reply papers were not before this Court for consideration prior to the rendering of the May 22, 2008 Decision and Order. Accordingly, claimant’s motion to reargue the summary judgment portion of the May 22, 2008 Decision and Order is granted in order for the Court to consider claimant’s reply papers.

As the party seeking summary judgment, claimant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Cox v Kingsboro Medical Group, 88 NY2d 904 [1996]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853, [1985]). Once the proponent of a summary judgment motion establishes a prima facie showing then the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of action (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

After a review of claimant’s reply papers, the Court finds that claimant has still failed to eliminate all material issues of fact from the case. Claimant had attached copies of his released medical records to his reply papers however defendant argues that only the relevant portions of claimant’s medical records were used in the defense of the Article 78 proceeding. Claimant did not provide the Court with the pleadings from the Article 78 proceeding which set forth the parameters and extent of the allegations in that action. In addition, the court notes that a portion of claimant’s medical records are illegible. As such, the Court is unable to determine whether or not the medical records contain information that was immaterial and irrelevant to the Article 78 proceeding.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court adheres to its original Decision and Order filed May 22, 2008 which, inter alia, denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment.

October 16, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].Claimant is not seeking to reargue that portion of the May 22, 2008 Decision and Order which addressed defendant’s motion to dismiss, M-74396.