Motion to reargue was denied.
|Claimant short name:||KOEHL|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Edward Koehl, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Michael C. Rizzo, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||September 24, 2009|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant, an inmate acting pro se, moves for reargument of his prior motion to compel compliance with discovery pursuant to CPLR 2221. By Decision and Order dated May 4, 2009 this Court denied the claimant's motion upon a finding that the defendant's response to claimant's discovery demands was adequate.
In support of the motion claimant asserts that the Court must have had ex parte communications with defense counsel because the Decision and Order makes reference to 3 inches of documents from the Inspector General's Office which were not part of the motion record. The claimant states in this regard that "no where in the record did the defendant state that the Inspector General's file contained 3" of documents" (claimant's affidavit in support, ¶ 3). Upon review of the order, however, it appears that the claimant mistook the Court's reference to "demand denominated '3' " as a reference to the volume of documents which comprise the Inspector General's file in this matter. No such reference was made.
It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR, Rule 2221 [d] ; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 ; Spa Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 213 AD2d 781 ). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 , lv denied 56 NY2d 507 ). Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
September 24, 2009
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers: