New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
GREEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-032-007, Claim No. 110190, Motion No. M-77516

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2010-032-007
Claimant(s): SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name: GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 110190
Motion number(s): M-77516
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney: Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, NYS Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 11, 2010
City: Albany
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking to reargue this Court's prior Decision and Order, dated October 13, 2009, which denied his motion to compel and his request for sanctions. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that claimant has failed to establish how the Court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law, or how the Court mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. The Court agrees and denies claimant's motion in its entirety.

In the original decision, the Court determined that defendant's responses to claimant's various discovery demands were appropriate and therefore, denied claimant's motion to compel. In addition, based on the Court's finding that defendant's responses were appropriate, the Court denied claimant's request for sanctions.

A motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (CPLR 2221 [d]; see Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [3d Dept 1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [3d Dept 1995]; Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729, 730 [3d Dept 2005]). The Court finds that claimant has failed to show that it overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied the law.

Accordingly, claimant's motion for reargument is denied in its entirety.

March 11, 2010

Albany, New York

JUDITH A. HARD

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

1. Motion for Reargument, dated November 10, 2009, "Affirmation" of Claimant, sworn to on November 10, 2009, Memorandum of Law, dated November 10, 2009, with Exhibits.

2. Affirmation of Roberto Barbosa, AAG, in Response to Claimant's Motion for Reargument, dated December 8, 2009.

3. Reply Affidavit of Claimant, sworn to December 15, 2009.