UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 24, 2009
JED ENGELS, PLAINTIFF,
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
By Decision & Order dated September 22, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that the claims were untimely. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration.
"The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless 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." Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000)(To sustain a motion for reconsideration, Petitioner " 'must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion.' ")(quoting Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)); Polanco v. United States, 2000 WL 1346726, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. September 19, 2000); Califano v. United States, 1998 WL 846779, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. September 4, 1998).
Nothing in Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration addresses the untimeliness of his claims. Plaintiff's claim of retaliation is not found in his Complaint, is an issue that could have been raised in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, and, in any event, would similarly appear to be time barred.*fn1 Nothing else in Plaintiff's motion satisfies the standard for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.