UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
December 4, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THROUGH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER,
TERRI PAUL BEEBE AND ANDREW BEEBE, RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 2009, this court denied the Small Business Administration's (SBA) motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York. ( Dkt. No. 2.) Pending is SBA's motion for reconsideration of that order. (Dkt. No. 4.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
II. Standard of Review
Motions for reconsideration proceed in the Northern District of New York under Local Rule 7.1(g).*fn1 "In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must satisfy stringent requirements." C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship v. Norton Co. (In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship), 182 B.R. 1, 2 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). A motion for 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." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The prevailing rule "recognizes only three possible grounds upon which motions for reconsideration may be granted; they are (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship, 182 B.R. at 3 (citation omitted). "[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. "[A]ny litigant considering bringing a motion for reconsideration must evaluate whether what may seem to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant." Gaston v. Coughlin, 102 F. Supp.2d 81, 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation omitted).
In its previous order, the court ruled that the challenged bankruptcy court order did not qualify for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).*fn2 (Order 10/14/09 at 5-6, Dkt. No. 2.) Specifically, the court determined that "given the late stage of the bankruptcy proceedings ... granting an immediate appeal would not ... materially advance the termination of the litigation." (Id.) SBA argues that "[t]his determination was premised on an erroneous legal assumption." (SBA Mot. for Recons. Mem. of Law at 2, Dkt. No. 4:3.) Specifically, SBA contends that the court "incorrectly assumed that the underlying Chapter 7 case is the relevant proceeding for purposes of determining appealability," rather than considering the "discrete contested matter commenced ... to determine violation of stay and imposition of sanctions." (Id. at 3, 5.)
SBA is incorrect. In making its appealability determination, the court focused solely on the discrete contested matter before it, and determined that an immediate appeal was unwarranted since only a damages inquest remained. Accordingly, because the court did not base its decision on an erroneous legal assumption as SBA contends, and because SBA has failed to show either an intervening change in controlling law, the existence of newly available evidence, or the taint of manifest injustice, SBA's motion for reconsideration is denied.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that SBA's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.