New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-054-087, Claim No. 131356, Motion No. M-92553

Synopsis

Claimant's motion to reargue denied. Claimant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-087
Claimant(s): DIANE WORD
Claimant short name: WORD
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 131356
Motion number(s): M-92553
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: DIANE WORD
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: August 30, 2018
City: White Plains
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for reargument:

Notice of Motion, Claimant's Declaration in Support of Motion and Exhibit.........1

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition, Memorandum of Law and Exhibit............2

Claimant moves for reargument of this Court's Decision and Order (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-065 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., June 20, 2018]) which granted defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 131356 on jurisdictional grounds.

"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" (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]). A reargument motion is not "a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (id.). Claimant has not established that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or that the Court misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476 [1st Dept 1992]; Foley, 68 AD2d at 567).

Accordingly, claimant's motion for reargument is DENIED.

August 30, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims