The opinion of the court was delivered by: KOELTL
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
In an Opinion and Order dated May 5, 1997, this Court adjudged the plaintiff, Mr. Peker, and his wife, Mrs. Peker, in contempt and dismissed this action with prejudice. The plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order pursuant to Local Rule 3(j).
A motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked the controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion. See Walsh v. McGee, 918 F. Supp. 107, 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); see also Local Rule 3(j); In re Houbigant, 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York v. Istim, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 46, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Local Rule 3(j) is "narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court." Walsh, 918 F. Supp. at 110; see also United States v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater New York, 909 F. Supp. 882, 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The Court must not allow reargument to be a substitute for appealing a final judgment or to permit a party to reargue those issues already considered merely because a party does not like the outcome. See Houbigant, 914 F. Supp. at 1001; Mason Tenders, 909 F. Supp. at 889.
In this case, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked either controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in Magistrate Judge Peck's Memorandum, which certified facts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) demonstrating the contempt of Mr. and Ms. Peker and recommended dismissal of the case as the appropriate sanction, in the transcript and audiotape of the relevant conference, in the hearing held by this Court on April 25, 1997, and in the two written submissions by the plaintiff. Instead, the plaintiff simply disagrees with the conclusions reached by the Court. The motion for reconsideration is therefore without merit.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff's motion for reargument is denied.
Dated: New York, New York
United States District Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...