Opinion
# 2014-028-509 Claim No. 118561 Motion No. M-84613 Motion No. M-84773
04-14-2014
DIANE WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Claimant's attorney: DIANE WORD, PRO SE Defendant's attorney: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Pro se Claimant's motions for leave to renew are denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-028-509 |
| 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): | 118561 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84613, M-84773 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | RICHARD E. SISE |
| Claimant's attorney: | DIANE WORD, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 14, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following were read and considered with respect to Claimant's motions to renew and to vacate:
1. Notice of Motion No. M-84613 to renew and unsworn Declaration of pro se Claimant dated February 3, 2014;
Claimant's unsworn declaration is in the form of an affirmation. Pursuant to CPLR 2106, only an attorney or a non-party doctor, osteopath or dentist authorized to practice in the State of New York may serve and file an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit. While the Court has read and considered Claimant's unsworn declaration, Claimant is reminded that she needs to submit a duly notarized affidavit in support of her motions.
2. Affidavit in Opposition of Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Rizzo sworn to February 13, 2014;
3. "Notice of Motion Addendum to Motion No. M-84613" and unsworn Declaration dated February 19, 2014;
see footnote # 1.
4. Notice of Motion No. M-84773 to vacate and unsworn Declaration of pro se Claimant dated March 10, 2014.
see footnote # 1.
By motion No. M-84613, Claimant moves for leave to renew prior motion No. M-78996 which dismissed claim No. 118561 on motion for summary judgment, and by motion No. M-84773, Claimant moves to vacate prior motion No. M-78996 pursuant to CPLR 2221 (a), again by requesting leave to renew the prior motion. Regardless of the name given to each motion, it is clear that Claimant is unhappy with a prior decision granting summary judgment and dismissing claim No. 118561 (see Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-029-027 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Sept. 7, 2011]). On four prior occasions, Claimant has requested that the Court reexamine its prior decision and order granting summary judgment. The first was a motion for leave to renew which was denied by decision and order file-stamped March 1, 2012 (Word v State of New York, Ct Cl, Jan. 20, 2012, Mignano, J., claim No. 118561, motion No. M-80727). Claimant then brought a second motion which was also denied (Word v State of New York, Ct Cl, Jun. 10, 2012, Mignano, J., claim No. 118561, motion No. M-81194). Claimant moved for a third and a fourth time which were also denied (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2013-010-003 [Ct Cl, Ruderman, J., Feb. 20, 2013]; Word v State of New York, UID No. 2014-028-502 [Ct Cl, Sise, APJ, Jan. 15, 2014]). Claimant's present motions are no more than a fifth and sixth attempt to obtain leave pursuant to CPLR 2221 (a) to renew the September 7, 2011 decision and order which granted summary judgment and dismissed claim No. 118561.
A motion to renew must be based on new facts that would change the prior decision or demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior decision (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Alexy v Stein, 16 AD3d 989 [3d Dept 2005]). Claimant has, once again, failed to show that there are any new facts or a change in the law that would affect the prior decision and order granting summary judgment. If Claimant believes the initial decision was erroneous, she should have appealed that decision in lieu of repeated motion practice in this Court. Claimant is reminded 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., Feb. 10, 2014]).
Accordingly, Claimant's motions No. M-84613 and M-84773 are denied.
April 14, 2014
Albany, New York
RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims