| People ex rel. Adams v Cunningham |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09146 [134 AD3d 1258] |
| December 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York ex rel. JerryAdams, Appellant, v Robert Cunningham, as Superintendent of WoodbourneCorrectional Facility, Respondent. |
Jerry Adams, Woodbourne, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered November 21,2013 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, deniedpetitioner's motion to reargue.
In 1988, petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of sodomy in the first degree,robbery in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of stolen property andsentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 25 to 50 years(People v Adams, 178 AD2d 536 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 943[1992]). His subsequent application for a writ of error coram nobis was denied(People v Adams, 223 AD2d 649 [1996]) and, in 1994 and 2012, his motions tovacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL article 440 were denied. In 2013,petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, among otherthings, that he had been deprived of various constitutional rights in the criminal action,including the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and challenging the evidenceadduced therein. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application and dismissed thepetition by judgment entered October 1, 2013. Petitioner thereafter moved to reargue,which the court denied in a judgment entered November 21, 2013. Petitioner nowappeals from the [*2]judgment denying his motion toreargue.[FN*]
No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see People ex rel. Timothy I. v Mr.Campbell, 95 AD3d 1497 [2012]; Putney v People, 94 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2012], appealdismissed 19 NY3d 1020 [2012], lv dismissed and denied 21 NY3d 909[2013]). Further, petitioner's motion was not identified as, and cannot be viewed as, amotion to renew given that he did not allege "new facts" not previously offered "thatwould change the prior determination" or provide "reasonable justification for the failureto present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Gonzalez v L'Oreal USA,Inc., 92 AD3d 1158, 1160 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 874 [2012]).Thus, petitioner's appeal from the judgment denying reargument must be dismissed.
Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal isdismissed, without costs.
Footnote *:Petitioner did not file anotice of appeal from the judgment entered on October 1, 2013 and, accordingly, it is notbefore the Court on this appeal.