Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
SCOTT v. NEW YORK HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES UNION
May 6, 2003
ROSALEE SCOTT, PLAINTIFF,
NEW YORK HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES UNION, 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, AND BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Keenan, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rosalee Scott's ("Scott") motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 6, 2003 Order and Opinion granting Defendants New York Health and Human Services Union, 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO and Beth Israel Medical Center's motion for summary judgment. Scott's motion is made pursuant to the Court for the Southern District of New York's Local Civil Rule 6.3. Rule 6.3, which in essence simply elaborates on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), provides a vehicle for a party to call the court's attention to facts or controlling decisions it believes the court overlooked in reaching its prior decision. The Rule is not meant to serve as a substitute for a direct appeal or as an opportunity to reargue the original motion. See Cohen v. Koenig, 932 F. Supp. 505, 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). For that reason, motions to reconsider are not granted where the moving party is simply looking to relitigate an issue already decided. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 225, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration falls squarely within the discretion of the district court. See Devlin v. Transp. Communications Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 132 (2d Cir. 1999). Although granting reconsideration is within its discretion, "reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp.2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). "The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. This standard is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to avoid retracing ground already covered. Cohen, 932 F. Supp. at 506-07.
Scott has failed to meet the standard necessary to grant reconsideration. Scott's memorandum in support of her motion for reconsideration does not offer any controlling decisions that the Court did not already consider in reaching its decision. Nor has Scott offered any fact that the Court did not consider. Rather, Scott has called the Court's attention to a number of facts expressly considered by the Court which she believes were misconstrued by the Court. Not reaching the same legal conclusion based on the same set of facts is not the same as "overlooking" facts. Thus, Scott's motion for reconsideration must be denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For