Opinion
# 2012-041-063 Claim No. 118334 Motion No. M-81588
08-01-2012
OMAR D. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for reargument is denied where movant failed to file or serve motion papers underlying the prior decision and order and failed to show that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law in its prior determination. Case information
UID: 2012-041-063 Claimant(s): OMAR D. WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118334 Motion number(s): M-81588 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO OMAR D. WILLIAMS Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: August 1, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant moves for reargument of his motion for an order directing defendant to produce certain documents which resulted in the Court's Decision and Order, filed April 23, 2012, denying claimant's motion. Defendant opposes the motion.
A motion to reargue is "made on the papers submitted on the original motion" (Phillips v Village of Oriskany, 57 AD2d 110, 113 [4th Dept 1977]). Claimant has not provided a copy of "the papers submitted on the original motion" in his motion to reargue.
Additionally, in determining a motion, the court may only consider documents and exhibits which have been served upon all parties (CPLR 2214 [c]). Unless the Attorney General has been served with a set of motion papers different than those filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims, claimant has failed to serve the papers submitted on the original motion on the Attorney General. Therefore, the papers submitted on the original motion cannot be considered even if the Court were to attempt to retrieve those papers from the Clerk of the Court of Claims, which it has no obligation to do (Sheedy v Pataki, 236 AD2d 92, 97-98 [3d Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 805 [1998]).
Beyond these fatal procedural infirmities, "[i]t is well settled that a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is properly granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" (Peak v Northway Travel Trailers Inc., 260 AD2d 840, 842 [3d Dept 1999]).
Claimant has not shown that the Court "overlooked or misapprehended" the relevant facts or law in its prior decision and order (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the claimant's motion for reargument is denied.
August 1, 2012
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed May 23, 2012;
2. Affidavit of Omar Williams, sworn to May 18, 2012, and annexed exhibit A;
3. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, dated June 5, 2012;
4. Claimant's Reply to Affirmation in Opposition, dated June 15, 2012.