United States District Court, S.D. New York
August 16, 2005.
FELIPE MORALES, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DET. THEODORE CAMPBELL, AND P.O.s JOHN and JANE DOE #1-10, individually and in their official capacities, (the names John Doe and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SIDNEY STEIN, District Judge
On July 7, 2005, this Court issued an order granting summary
judgment to defendants on all of plaintiff Felipe Morales' claims
for reasons that had been set forth on the record in a conference
with the parties held on that day. Morales now moves for
reconsideration of that order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Motions for reconsideration are granted when "the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
"Alternatively, the movant must demonstrate the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Griffin Indus., Inc.
v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). In light of the fact that
a motion for reconsideration "is not a substitute for appeal,"
Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 369, 372
(S.D.N.Y. 1998), the legal standard "must be narrowly construed
and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been
considered fully by the Court." Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok,
296 F. Supp. 2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation marks and
All of the legal and factual contentions underlying Morales'
motion for reconsideration were thoroughly considered by the
Court and addressed on the record in connection with defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Moreover, Morales has failed to
demonstrate the need to prevent manifest injustice or correct a
clear error. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its prior
holdings, and Morales' motion is denied.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.