Motion for reconsideration/to vacate prior dismissal order was denied as was request to disqualify the office of the Attorney General.
|Claimant(s):||AMY R. WEISSBROD|
|Claimant short name:||WEISSBROD|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :||The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole properly named defendant here is the State of New York.|
|Motion number(s):||M-75320, M-76269|
|Judge:||Alan C. Marin|
|Claimant's attorney:||Amy R. Weissbrod, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Cheryl Rameau, AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||June 10, 2009|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
In motion no. M-75320, claimant Amy R. Weissbrod moves for an order: (1) "granting reconsideration" in connection with the court's previous Decision and Order on motion nos. M-73278 and CM-74269, which was dated June 23, 2008 and filed July 15, 2008 (the "Decision and Order"); and (2) disqualifying "the NYS Attorney General, and ordering that [the] Attorney General can no longer serve as the defendants' lawyer in this proceeding." In motion no. M-76269, Ms. Weissbrod moves for an order: (1) granting her leave to amend her claim; (2) disqualifying the Attorney General's office; and (3) vacating the Decision and Order. The underlying claim in this case related primarily to the actions of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department.
To the extent that Ms. Weissbrod moves for "reconsideration" and to vacate the Decision and Order, it will be assumed that she is making a motion to reargue or renew pursuant to CPLR 2221. As for a motion to reargue, claimant has failed to show that any matters of fact or law were overlooked or misapprehended by the court. As for a motion to renew, claimant has failed to identify a change in the law or to offer new facts not offered on the prior motions that would change the prior determination.
To the extent claimant moves to amend her claim, such application must be denied as moot, since her claim was dismissed in the Decision and Order.
Finally, claimant has failed to demonstrate that the office of the Attorney General should be disqualified.
Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(2) , IT IS ORDERED that motion nos. M-75320 and M-76269 be denied.
June 10, 2009
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims
2. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion no. M-75320 with affidavit in support with exhibits 1 and 2: defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion no. M-75320 with exhibits A and B; claimant's "Notice of Adjourned Return Date [on] Claimant's Motion for Reconsideration" dated September 15, 2008; claimant's letter submission dated January 18, 2009 with exhibits 1 through 5; claimant's notice of motion no. M-76269 with affidavit in support and exhibits 1 through 12; defendant's affirmation in opposition to motion no. M-76269; and "Claimant's Reply" re motion no. M-76269.