Claimant's motion to reargue and renew this Court's prior determination granting defendant's summary judgment motion was denied. That branch of the motion seeking to reargue was previously denied and is therefore law of the case and that branch of claimant's motion for renewal based on new evidence was denied as meritless.
|Claimant short name:||RANDOLPH|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||FRANCIS T. COLLINS|
|Claimant's attorney:||Edward Randolph, 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:||May 27, 2021|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 to reargue and renew this Court's Decision and Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Claimant, a pro se former inmate, seeks damages for the destruction of certain personal property entrusted to prison officials but not returned. By Decision and Order filed October 21, 2020 defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for failing to exhaust administrative remedies was granted and the claim was dismissed. By Decision and Order filed March 3, 2021, claimant's motion, denominated one for "Reconsideration," was considered a motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 and was denied after addressing the merits of the motion (defendant's affirmation, ¶ 13). The Decision and Order denying claimant's prior motion for reargument is therefore law of the case to the extent claimant again seeks reargument of the same Decision and Order dismissing the claim (2001 Real Estate Space Catalyst, Inc. v Stone Land Capital, Inc., ___AD3d ___, 2021 NY Slip Op 03138 [1st Dept 2021]).
To the extent claimant submits new evidence in support of that branch of his motion seeking renewal, a review of the proof presented indicates claimant's administrative claim for the loss of his personal property was rejected because, among other things, it was vague and incomplete. Claimant filed a grievance relating to this determination which was denied on the ground "[a] rejected claim cannot be appealed" (claimant's Exhibit K) and the Central Office Review Committee affirmed this determination (claimant's Exhibits J and K). Inasmuch as claimant did not correct and resubmit his institutional claim for an initial determination, an administrative determination was not rendered on the merits. As a result, claimant failed, in support of the instant motion, to establish his compliance with the administrative claim procedure set forth in 7 NYCRR part 1700. This Court's Decision and Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim was therefore proper.Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.
May 27, 2021
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Undated notice of motion filed April 26, 2021;
2. Affidavit of Edward Randolph dated April 16, 2021;
3. Affidavit in support sworn to April 21, 2021, with Exhibits A-L;
4. Affirmation in opposition dated May 3, 2021, with Exhibits A and B.