claimant's motion for renewal denied, lacking a basis under CPLR 2221 (e)
|Claimant short name:||WORD|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claimant's attorney:||DIANE WORD
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||April 3, 2019|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for renewal:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibit................................1
Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition, Memorandum of Law and Exhibits..........2
Claimant brings this second motion to renew regarding 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.
By Decision and Order filed-stamped December 3, 2018 (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-109 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., October 29, 2018]), this Court denied claimant's motion for renewal as unfounded and lacking a basis under CPLR 2221 (e).
By Decision and Order filed-stamped September 10, 2018 (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-087 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., August 30, 2018]), this Court denied claimant's motion for reargument noting that a reargument motion is not "a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided" (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]).
The Court denies claimant's second motion for renewal as unfounded and lacking a basis under CPLR 2221 (e) to grant her application. The Court further notes that a renewal motion is not a vehicle to argue once again the questions previously decided by the Court.
Claimant is once again reminded that "sanctionable conduct is such that 'is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law' (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]), and that further frivolous motion practice may subject her to monetary sanctions (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 [c]; [d]; 22 NYCRR § 130-1.2)" (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2014-038-504 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., February 10, 2014]).
Accordingly, claimant's motion to renew is DENIED.
April 3, 2019
White Plains, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims