Motion to reargue was denied.
|Claimant(s):||PRASANNA W. GOONEWARDENA|
|Claimant short name:||GOONEWARDENA|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK and THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||ALAN C. MARIN|
|Claimant's attorney:||Prasanna W. Goonewardena, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: John M. Hunter, AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||June 22, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant moves for leave to reargue this court's prior decision and order which denied his motion to amend his claim, and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claim (motion nos. M-76959 and M-77434). Defendants oppose the application.
CPLR § 2221 (d) permits a party to move for leave to reargue "upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior 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 any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided . . . (citations omitted). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application" 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).
Claimant has failed to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the law. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,(1)
it is ordered that Motion No. M-78228 be denied.
June 22, 2010
New York, New York
ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. The following were reviewed: claimant's "Motion for Re Argument" with affidavit in support, undesignated exhibits and exhibits 1 through 3; defendants' affirmation in opposition; claimant's "Reply in Further Support of [Claimant's] Motion for Re Argument."