"[T]o be entitled to reargument under Local [Civil Rule 6.3], [a party]
must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or
factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion."
American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 163 F.R.D. 211,
213 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), rev'd on other
grounds, 92 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1996), citing Ameritrust Co., N.A.
v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Fulani v.
Brady. 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd
sub nom., Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d
Cir. 1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York.
141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v.
Banker. 791 F. Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v.
National Broad. Co., 760 F. Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);
Ashley Meadows Farm. Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass'n,
624 F. Supp. 856, 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Thus, "a party in its motion for
reargument `may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously
presented to the court.'" In re Integrated Resources Real Estate
Limited Partnerships Sec. Litig., 850 F. Supp. 1105, 1151 (S.D.N.Y.
1994), quoting Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb.
Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447 (JMC), 1989 WL 162315 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
4, 1989), rev'd on other grounds. 967 F.2d 742 (2d Cir. 1992).
Accord Caribbean Trading & Fidelity Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l
Petroleum Corp., 948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991). See also Woodard v.
Hardenfelder, 845 F. Supp. 960, 966 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). Motions for
reargument should not be used to permit a party "to reargue those issues
already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion
was resolved." In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001
Plaintiff cites no controlling facts or controlling legal principles
that were called to my attention and overlooked in connection with his
initial motions. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet the stringent
standard that would support a motion for reconsideration.