Opinion
# 2012-039-285Claim No. 117000Motion # 2012-039-285Claim No. M-79470M-80094
02-23-2012
JACKSON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for summary judgment is denied. Claimant's motion seeks to relitigate the matters that were decided by the Court in the underlying decision and order. Claimant's motion to disqualify the Court from hearing the motion to reargue is also denied. Claimant has identified no basis for disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, and claimant's allegations of bias and prejudice are unsubstantiated. Case information
UID: 2012-039-285 Claimant(s): NAHSHON JACKSON Claimant short name: JACKSON Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 117000 Motion number(s): M-79470, M-80094 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: James H. Ferreira Claimant's attorney: NahShon Jackson, pro se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Belinda A. Wagner Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 23, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
A claim was filed with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims on June 16, 2009. In it, claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, sought damages for his continuing alleged unlawful confinement by defendant. By Decision and Order dated December 6, 2010, the Court (Ferreira, J.) denied claimant's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.
There are two motions currently pending before the Court in this matter. In the first, claimant moves the Court, pursuant to CPLR 2221, for leave to reargue his prior motion. While this motion was pending, claimant filed a second motion seeking an order disqualifying the Court from hearing his motion to reargue and from further involvement in this action. Defendant opposes both motions. The Court will first address claimant's motion to disqualify. In this motion, claimant asserts that disqualification is required "because of improper judicial interest having emerged and [the Court's] inability to render a righteous judgment, due to [claimant's] race, poverty, incarceration and the nature of [his] claim involving corrupt public servants who have conveyed the impression that they are in a special position to influence" the Court (Motion to Disqualify ¶ 3). Claimant further avers that the Court is "dishonest and bias[ed]" against him and that "[t]here exist[s] a reasonable suspicion as to [the Court's] fairness, impartiality and integrity," as evidenced by the Court's decision granting summary judgment in defendant's favor, as well as the Court's failure to promptly issue a decision on claimant's motion to reargue (Motion to Disqualify ¶¶ 26-27).
Judiciary Law § 14 provides, in relevant part, that "[a] judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which he [or she] is a party, or in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel, or in which he [or she] is interested, or if he [or she] is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree" (see Oakes v Muka, 56 AD3d 1057, 1059 [2008]). In addition, a judge must "disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where . . . the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party" (22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1] [a] [i]). "Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, recusal is a matter solely within the discretion and personal conscience of the court" (Matter of Zugibe v Bartlett, 63 AD3d 1165, 1165-1166 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Murphy, 82 NY2d 491, 495 [1993]; Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 290 AD2d 928, 930 [2002]).
Upon careful review of claimant's motion and the materials accompanying it, the Court concludes that claimant has failed to establish grounds for disqualification. In particular, claimant has identified no basis for disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, and the Court perceives none. Moreover, claimant's allegations of bias and prejudice are unsubstantiated and insufficient to require recusal (see Matter of Jason A.C. v Lisa A.C., 30 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2006]; Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 290 AD2d at 930). It is apparent from the motion that the basis for claimant's disqualification motion is his disagreement with the Court's decision dismissing the claim (see Matter of Petkovsek v Snyder, 251 AD2d 1086, 1086 [1998]). In any event, the Court holds no bias whatsoever against this claimant, and a review of the record to date in this Court's view does not reflect any bias or prejudice. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify the Court is denied.
Turning to claimant's motion to reargue, CPLR 2221 (d) provides, in relevant part, that a motion for leave to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion." " 'It is well settled that a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is properly granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision' " (Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729, 730 [2005], quoting Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840, 842 [1999]; see Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669, 670-671 [2009]). "Reargument is not a vehicle permitting a previously unsuccessful party to once again argue the very questions previously decided or to assert new, never previously offered arguments" (Kent v 534 E. 11th St., 80 AD3d 106, 116 [2010] [citations omitted]; see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979]).
In support of reargument, claimant contends that the Court overlooked his request that the Court direct defendant to produce evidence proving the authenticity of the sentence and commitment order pursuant to which he is being confined. He also argues that the Court erred in relying on the attested copy of the sentence and commitment order submitted by defendant, as it was not properly authenticated or certified pursuant to CPLR 4540 (b). Claimant further asserts that the Court failed to consider two exhibits submitted in support of his motion which, he argues, establish that the sentence and commitment order relied upon by the Court was not a true and exact copy of the same.Upon review of claimant's motion papers, the Court concludes that claimant has not established that the Court " 'overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision' " (Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d at 730; see CPLR 2111 [d]). Rather, claimant's motion seeks to relitigate the matters that were decided by the Court in the underlying decision and order. As such, the motion must be denied.
Claimant also argues that he has been deprived of his right to appeal from the Court's decision and order because "[n]o authority has been given to the Clerk [of the Court of Claims] in the form of a direction to enter a judgment upon the Court's decision to dismiss [his] claim" (Motion to Reargue ¶ 4). This argument is without merit, as claimant was served with the Court's December 6, 2010 Decision and Order, and the Decision and Order is reviewable by the appellate division pursuant to CPLR 5501 (d). Notably, on February 14, 2011, the Court received a copy of claimant's notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department dated February 8, 2011.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Motion Nos. M-79470 and M-80094 are denied.
February 23, 2012
Albany, New York
James H. Ferreira
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion for Leave to Reargue and Entry of Judgment dated January 27, 2011;
2. Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reargue and Entry of Judgment by NahShon Jackson sworn to on January 27, 2011;
3. Affirmation in Opposition by Belinda A. Wagner, AAG dated February 22, 2011;
4. Notice of Motion for an Order Disqualifying Judge James H. Ferreira dated June 15, 2011;
5. Affidavit in Support of Motion for an Order Disqualifying Judge James H. Ferreira sworn to on June 14, 2011, and accompanying exhibits;
6. Affirmation in Opposition by Belinda A. Wagner, AAG dated July 6, 2011;
7. Letter from Claimant, dated October 28, 2011, and accompanying exhibits; and
8. Reply Affirmation by Belinda A. Wagner, AAG dated November 2, 2011.