Opinion
# 2014-028-502 Claim No. 118561 Motion No. M-83409
01-15-2014
DIANE WORD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Pro se Claimant's fourth motion for leave to renew is denied.
Case information
UID: 2014-028-502 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-83409 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: RICHARD E. SISE Claimant's attorney: DIANE WORD, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant's attorney: BY: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: January 15, 2014 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The following were read and considered with respect to Claimant's motion to reopen claim No. 118561:
1. Notice of motion and unsworn affirmation of pro se Claimant dated May 1, 2013;
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. Because Claimant is an inmate proceeding pro se, however, the Court has read and considered Claimant's unsworn statement.
2. Affidavit in opposition of Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Rizzo sworn to May 7, 2013;
3. Unsworn "Affirmation in Claimant's pro se objection to Defendant's opposition" of pro se Claimant dated May 20, 2013.
see footnote # 1.
Claimant moves "to reopen for correct Decision and Order on Laws." As far as the Court can decipher, Claimant is seeking to reopen claim No. 118561 which was dismissed on motion for summary judgment (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2011-029-027 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Sept. 7, 2011]). On three prior occasions, Claimant has moved requesting 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 to renew which was also denied (Word v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 10, 2012, Mignano, J., claim No. 118561, motion No. M-81194). Claimant moved for a third time for leave to renew which was also denied (Word v State of New York, UID No. 2013-010-003 [Ct Cl, Ruderman, J., Feb. 20, 2013]). Claimant captions her present motion as a motion to reopen for correct decision which is nothing more than a fourth attempt for leave to renew the prior motion 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.
Accordingly, Claimant's motion is denied.
January 15, 2014
Albany, New York
RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims