New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WORD v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-032-006, Claim No. 116177, Motion No. M-77508

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2010-032-006
Claimant(s): DIANE WORD
Claimant short name: WORD
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 116177
Motion number(s): M-77508
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney: Diane Word, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, NYS Attorney General
By: Joan Matalavage, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 9, 2010
City: Albany
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant's motion seeks leave to renew the prior Decision and Order of this Court, signed on October 13, 2009. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that claimant has failed to comply with CPLR 2221 (e) by failing to: (1) state what new facts were not offered on the prior motion that would have changed the prior determination; (2) demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would affect the prior determination; and (3) set forth reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.

In the original Decision and Order, signed October 13, 2009, the Court dismissed the Claim and Amended Claim filed by claimant on the basis that they sought equitable relief (specially, the review of the discretionary decision of the New York State Parole Board with respect to its denial of claimant's release from incarceration), which the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear.

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e]; Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 1300, 1302-1303 [3d Dept 2007]). It shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (Id.). The Court cannot ascertain any new facts or any change in the law from claimant's motion papers that would have any bearing on the Court's prior determination.

Accordingly, claimant's motion for leave to renew is denied it its entirety.

March 9, 2010

Albany, New York

JUDITH A. HARD

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion to Renew and Affidavit in Support of Motion to Renew, Sworn to by claimant on November 17, 2009;

2. Affidavit in Opposition of Joan Matalavage, AAG, sworn to November 25, 2009, with Exhibit;

3. "Affirmation in Claimant's Pro Se Reply of Objection", dated November 30, 2009.