New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
GOONEWARDENA v. THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK and THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-016-041, Claim No. 112202, Motion No. M-78228

Synopsis

Motion to reargue was denied.

Case information

UID: 2010-016-041
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) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 112202
Motion number(s): M-78228
Cross-motion number(s):
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
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

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."