New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-015-036, Claim No. 132601, Motion No. M-95105


Pro se claimant's motion for the Court to review a decision of the Comptroller regarding the amount of her New York State pension was denied as the claim was previously dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction.

Case information

UID: 2020-015-036
Claimant short name: BROWN
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 132601
Motion number(s): M-95105
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Deidre Sue Brown, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 16, 2020
City: Saratoga Springs
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant moves for "a decision about tax amount taken out of (retirement) pension for the IRS" (claimant's undated notice of motion).

Claimant, proceeding pro se, filed a claim seeking review of a determination of the New York State Comptroller regarding the amount of her New York State pension benefits. By Decision and Order dated October 22, 2019 (filed November 19, 2019), defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground this Court lacks jurisdiction to review such determinations was granted, and the claim was dismissed. In light of this dismissal, claimant's current motion is improper and must be denied. To the extent the motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision and Order dismissing the claim, claimant failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact, or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [3d Dept 1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [3d Dept 1995]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979], appeal denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]). Nor has claimant demonstrated new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, or that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see also Strunk v Paterson, 145 AD3d 700, 701 [2d Dept 2016]; Sarfati v Palazzolo, 142 AD3d 877 [1st Dept 2016]).

Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.

March 16, 2020

Saratoga Springs, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Undated Notice of Motion, filed December 3, 2019;
  2. Unsworn affidavit dated May 7, 2019, with attachments;
  3. Claimant's correspondence dated January 12, 2020;
  4. Affirmation in opposition dated January 30, 2020;
  5. Claimant's response to opposition dated February 1, 2020, with Exhibits A-D.