Opinion
# 2011-038-585 Claim No. 119778 Motion No. M-80687
12-23-2011
WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for leave to reargue denied. Claimant did not demonstrate that the Court erroneously ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claim for damages flowing from a failure of the Parole Board to decide her appeal from denial of parole. Case information
UID: 2011-038-585 Claimant(s): DIANE WORD Claimant short name: WORD Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119778 Motion number(s): M-80687 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: W. BROOKS DeBOW Claimant's attorney: DIANE WORD, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant's attorney: OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 23, 2011 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
This claim by an individual incarcerated in a State Correctional Facility seeks damages as a result of the alleged failure of the Board of Parole to issue a written disposition of claimant's appeal from a denial of parole. By decision and order filed November 14, 2011, defendant's cross motion to dismiss this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted, and claimant's motion for a default judgment was denied (see Word v State of New York, UID # 2011-038-565, Claim No. 119778, Motion Nos. M-80073, CM-80129, DeBow, J. [Oct. 26, 2011]). Claimant now moves for leave to reargue.
A motion to reargue is one which seeks to persuade the court that its ruling should be reconsidered because the Court ruled incorrectly upon the submissions that were before it (Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, Inc., 260 AD2d 840, 841 [3d Dept 1999]). "The motion is not designed to afford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted" (Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865 [3d Dept 1993]; see also Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 815 [1996]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 [1st Dept 1979]).
Here, claimant's argument that the Court of Claims does have jurisdiction over this claim is merely a restatement of the argument that she made in opposition to defendant's cross motion, and does not demonstrate that the Court's prior ruling was incorrect. Claimant's submission does not identify any matters of fact or law that the Court allegedly overlooked or misapplied in its prior decision (see CPLR 2221[d][2]). Thus, her motion for reargument must be denied. Further, to the extent that this Court would consider the merits of claimant's reargument, the sole case she cites, Matter of Buford v Russi (152 Misc 2d 23 [Sup Ct, Orange County 1991]), indicates that the Parole Board fails to fulfill its obligations to decide an appeal only when its delay in deciding that appeal is unreasonable. Manifestly, a determination of whether a delay was unreasonable requires judicial review of the Parole Board's process in deciding the particular application for parole. A decision by this Court on whether claimant is entitled to damages flowing from a failure to decide claimant's appeal would necessarily require review of the process undertaken by the Parole Board. Thus, Buford actually supports the Court's prior determination that subject matter jurisdiction over this claim is lacking.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that claimant's motion for permission to reargue, motion number M-80687 is DENIED.
December 23, 2011
Albany, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Decision and Order in Word v State of New York, UID # 2011-038-565, Claim No. 119778,
Motion Nos. M-80073, CM-80129, DeBow, J. (October 26, 2011), and papers considered therewith;
(2) Notice of Motion for Leave to Reargue, dated November 17, 2011;
(3) "Affirmation" of Diane Word in Support of Motion for Leave to Reargue, dated November 17, 2011;
(4) Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas R. Monjeau, AAG, dated December 8, 2011.