|Claimant(s):||TERRELL K. ELEBY|
|Claimant short name:||ELEBY|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||MAUREEN T. LICCIONE|
|Claimant's attorney:||Terrell K. Eleby, pro se|
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||September 28, 2021|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
This is a motion "for judgment on the pleading" by claimant, Terrell K. Eleby (Claimant), an incarcerated person who is proceeding pro se. The State of New York opposes the motion.
A motion for a judgment on the pleadings is no longer a procedure recognized by the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). The equivalent under the current rules is a motion for summary judgment (see, McKinney's Commentaries, Connors, P., § C3018:4). Here, Claimant's prior motion for summary judgment was denied by decision and order of this Court dated January 22, 2021.
"Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause" (Duchnowski v State of New York, UID No. 2021-053-503 [Ct Cl, Sampson, J., Jan. 25, 2021], quoting Tingling v C.I.N.H.R., Inc., 120 AD3d 570, 570 [2d Dept 2014][citations omitted]). Here, Claimant has failed to identify or offer any newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause to warrant consideration of a second motion for summary judgment. Absent sufficient cause for advancing a second summary judgment motion, Claimant's second motion is denied on this basis alone (Hillrich Holding Corp. v. BMSL Mgmt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 474, 103 N.Y.S.3d 846 [2d Dept, 2019]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Claimant's motion (motion no. M-96885) is denied.
September 28, 2021
Hauppauge, New York
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
Judge of the Court of Claims