Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a) of the papers considered in the review of this Motion Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1 Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits Replying Affidavits Exhibits Supplemental Affidavit Cross-Motion 2 DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and to restore this matter to the calendar, and defendant’s cross-motion for sanctions, are decided as follows: Plaintiff commenced an action on May 9, 2022, for Damage caused to person, illegal arrest, illegal lockout for $50,000.00 with interest from 05/07/2022. It appears that on November 15, 2022, plaintiff failed to appear in court, and the action was dismissed. Plaintiff submitted a motion to restore this matter to the calendar and to vacate the dismissal. By the order of Judge Claudia Lanzetta, dated September 12, 2023, the motion to restore the case to the calendar was denied, and the cross-motion by defendant JUSTIN GROSSMAN (a New York City Marshal) to dismiss was granted. That dismissal was not on the merits, but for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction. It is noted said Hon. Claudia Lanzetta is presently assigned as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court. Plaintiff submitted a prior motion requesting what appears to be the same or similar relief, and that motion was denied by the Hon. Karen Lin, dated October 20, 2023, since plaintiff’s remedy should be an appeal, or a motion to reargue. Now plaintiff brings a motion of “an injunction”, but the content appears to be for re-argument. This Court will not grant re-argument. The motion seeking leave ro reargue a motion lies within the discretion of the Court, a motion for leave to reargue is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented, Ahmed v. Pannone, 116 A.D. 3d 802 (2nd Dept. 2014). The Court finally notes that there has been no disposition on the merits, and that the statute of limitations for an injury to property, or an action to recover a chattel, or damages for the taking of a chattel is three years, pursuant to CPLR 214. The Court understands that the attorneys for the defendant’s may find plaintiff’s course of action frustrating, but the Court declines to order sanctions at this time. The Court does not find plaintiff’s conduct to be so frivolous such that sanctions should be ordered, such as in the matter of 57 Elmhurst LLC v. Morales, (Civil Court, Queens County, N.Y.L.J. 5/14/24, the Hon. Logan J. Schiff). Accordingly, the motion and cross-motion are both denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: May 17, 2024
