New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

H.L. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-040-025, Claim No. 113054, Motion No. M-75715


Motion by State for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) granted and, upon reargument, previous Decision modified.

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:
Elliot Ifraimoff & Associates, P.C.By: Julio Cesar Roman, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Joan Matalavage, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
March 5, 2009

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


For the reasons set forth below, the State’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a), for reargument of this Court’s prior Decision and Order (H.L. v State of New York, Claim No. 113054, Motion Nos. M-74374, CM-74410, September 17, 2008, McCarthy, J. [UID No. 2008-040-055]), is granted and, upon reargument, that prior Decision and Order is modified as set forth below.

The instant Claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court on November 29, 2006. The Claim alleges that Claimant was an inmate at Wallkill Correctional Facility, located in Wallkill, New York (“Wallkill”), during the period November 29, 2004 through April 2005, where he was sexually assaulted by a male nurse employed at Wallkill. It is alleged that Defendant was negligent in the hiring, training, supervision and control of the nurse.

In response to the Court’s prior motion Decision and Order, Defendant provided the Court with copies of the nurse’s personnel file, as well as the State Police and Inspector General files regarding this matter. Following completion of its in camera review, the Court determined that Claimant was entitled to discovery of various items. The State objects to certain items that the Court directed be disclosed and seeks to reargue that portion of the previous 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 (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813 [2d Dept 1988]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1st Dept 1979], appeal after remand 86 AD2d 887 [2d Dept 1982], appeal denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]). Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit an unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 NY 651, 652 [1891]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992]; lv dismissed in part, lv denied in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992], rearg denied 81 NY2d 782 [1993]). If such a motion contains new proof, it is a “renewal” motion, rather than a “reargument” motion, and should be treated as such (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:7, at 182). An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but which were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and which, therefore, were not made known to the Court (Matter of Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, 209-210 [1st Dept 1987], appeal dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [1988]).

As Defendant’s motion contains no new proof, the Court considers the motion to be one for reargument rather than renewal.

Upon a review of Defendant’s motion papers, counsel’s affidavit in support of the motion, Claimant’s counsel’s affirmation in opposition and the Court’s decision upon the original motion, and upon due deliberation, Defendant’s motion for reargument is granted and, upon such reargument, the Court’s prior Decision and Order is modified as follows:

(1) Defendant should not make available to Claimant the five-page “Report of Interview” dated March 18, 2005 (pp. 12-16 of the Inspector General’s investigation file) and the two pages of Ambulatory Health Records (pp. 32-33). The Court determines that Claimant has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for the requested disclosure, or that its application was upon notice to the non-party subject of those records as required by Civil Rights Law § 50-b(2)(b) (see Doe v Riback, 7 Misc 3d 341, 344 [Sup Ct, Albany County, 2005]);

(2) any other record containing confidential medical information pertaining to a non-party to this Claim shall be redacted so that no such information is provided; and

(3) the parties are directed to enter into a confidentiality agreement to preclude Claimant from sharing any such records from the Inspector General’s investigation file with any person who would not have access to such records in the normal course of employment.

In all other respects, the Court adheres to its prior determination because the Court finds that it properly applied the controlling principle of law and did not misapprehend the relevant facts.

Based upon the foregoing, therefore, Defendant’s motion is granted and the Court’s prior Decision and Order is modified only to the extent set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

March 5, 2009
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Defendant’s motion for reargument:

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2

Filed Papers: Claim, Answer