This case is not published in a printed volume and its disposition appears in a table in the reporter.
Plaintiff: Michael Andrews, PC NY NY
Defendant: Todman Nachamie Spizz Johns PC NY NY
Arthur M. Schack, J.
Plaintiff Vincent Mingrone moves to reargue and renew, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2221, this Court's decision and order of December 8, 2006, which dismissed two of the twelve defendants, Judy Hughes and Institute of Allied Medical Profession, Inc. (IAMP) from the action, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211, for plaintiff's failure to state a cause of action against them. Plaintiff's instant motion fails to comply with the requirement of CPLR Rule 2221 (f) that "[a] combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought." The motion only reargues what was decided on December 8, 2006. It fails, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2221 (e) (2) to present any "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or . . . demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination." Further, the motion is untimely, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2221 (d) (3). Therefore, as will be explained, the motion is denied.
The instant action deals with plaintiff's arrest at Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, on September 13, 2005. Defendants Hughes and IAMP are accused of providing false information to the police, which resulted in this arrest and violation of plaintiff's civil rights. The police released plaintiff the next day, and it appears that no formal criminal charges were ever brought against him.
I heard oral arguments, on December 8, 2006, on the motion by defendants Hughes and IAMP for their dismissal from the action. I had before me various motion papers and plaintiff's amended complaint, dated three days earlier on December 5, 2006. The first named defendant in the instant action is the City of New York, which had yet to file an answer and appear in the action. At that time I was recusing myself from any cases involving the City of New York, at the request of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Subsequently, and totally unrelated to this case, my recusal policy with respect to the City of New York terminated.
I explained to the parties at the December 8, 2008 oral arguments that I would rule on the motion to dismiss, and then recuse myself from any further involvement with the case because of the potential involvement of the City of New York. Immediately upon the conclusion of oral arguments I wrote a short-form order, which stated in its entirety:
Motion of defendants Hughes Institute of Allied Medical
Professions, Inc. (IAMP) is granted for dismissal from the action, pursuant to CPLR 3211, based upon the original complaint and the amended complaint of 12/5/06. Plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action against defendants Hughes IAMP. Rastelli v Goodyear
Tire Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289. No acts by Hughes and IAMP are specified in the complaint that are actionable. The Court recuses itself from further involvement with this matter due to the potential involvement of the City of New York as a defendant. See attached recusal order.
My attached recusal order contained boilerplate language that I then used with respect to my recusal at the ...