Claimant's motion to reargue was denied.
|Claimant short name:||ANAND|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claim number(s):||129898, 129899|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Chandrabhushan Anand, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||April 26, 2019|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant moves to reargue his prior motion which requested a change of venue and an Order compelling a response to his request for discovery.
Claimant, a former employee of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, alleges in claim numbers 129898 and 129899 that he was not paid all of the monies to which he was entitled upon his retirement on February 21, 2017.
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 (see CPLR, Rule 2221 [d] ; Matter of Ellsworth v Town of Malta, 16 AD3d 948 [3d Dept 2005]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [3d Dept 1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [3d Dept 1995]). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 ). Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented. Rather, he raises the very same arguments the Court previously rejected.
Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.
April 26, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims