Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kenney v. New York City Dep't of Education

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 2, 2008

LAVERNA KENNEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Harold Baer, Jr., District Judge

OPINION & ORDER

On October 22, 2007, this Court issued an Opinion & Order granting Defendant New York City Department of Education's motion for summary judgment and dismissing pro se Plaintiff Laverna Kenney's complaint*fn1 in its entirety. On October 29, 2007, Plaintiff notified the Court that she had not received a copy of the Opinion & Order because her address was listed incorrectly on the docket sheet. Thereafter, on November 13, 2007, the Court received an undated letter ("November 13th Letter") from Plaintiff in which she appeared to move for reconsideration.*fn2 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in my October 22, 2007 Opinion & Order, familiarity with which is presumed. See Kenney v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 06 Civ. 5770, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77926 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2007).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motions for reconsideration fall within the discretion of the court and are governed by the strict standards set forth in Local Civil Rule 6.3 ("Local Rule 6.3"). See Black v. Diamond, Nos. 05 Civ. 785, 05 Civ. 1669, U.S. App. LEXIS 1519, at *5 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) ("To marit reconsideration, a movant must point to law or facts which [he] believes the court has overlooked"); Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 427 (2d Cir. 2000) (same). The purpose of Local Civil Rule 6.3 is to ensure the finality of decisions. Relief is only available to the extent that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that were put before it, or alternatively, where the movant demonstrates a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). In accordance with these principles, the parties may not raise new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court. Lehmuller v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, 982 F. Supp. 132, 135 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to support relief under Local Rule 6.3 or, for that matter, any other reason to justify relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). With respect to Plaintiff's termination of employment and her failure to hire claims, she has pointed to no fact or controlling law which this Court failed to consider in its October 22nd Opinion & Order. All thirteen exhibits appended to her November 13th Letter to the Court were previously submitted (and considered by this Court) in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Further, Plaintiff simply reiterates in conclusory form that she has established a prima facie case of race discrimination-a position throughly explored by this Court during oral argument on September 11, 2007 and rejected in its October 22, 2007 Opinion & Order.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this motion and ensure that this case is removed from my docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.