UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 19, 2010
ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF THE GARRETT HOTEL GROUP, INC., PLAINTIFF,
COMSEC VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND MAHONEY NOTIFY PLUS, INC., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff OneBeacon America Insurance Company brought this diversity action as the subrogee of the Garrett Hotel Group, seeking compensation for fire damage incurred to Garrett's property. OneBeacon asserted claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and misrepresentation. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 7, 2010, the court denied in part and granted in part Mahoney's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of OneBeacon's claims except its claim for negligence. (Dkt. No. 64.) Pending is Mahoney's motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 66.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
II. Standard of Review
The standard of review applicable to a motion for reconsideration is well established, and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Lust v. Joyce,No. 1:05-CV-613, 2007 WL 3353214, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2007).
Mahoney offers three arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration, all of which were previously presented and considered by the court, and none of which demonstrate an intervening change in controlling law, the existence of newly available evidence, a clear error of law,*fn2 or manifest injustice. Its arguments are therefore insufficient to merit the grant of reconsideration. See C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship v. Norton Co., 182 B.R. 1, 2 (N.D.N.Y. 1995); see also Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144(2d Cir. 1998) (noting that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for "a second bite at the apple"); Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided."). Accordingly, Mahoney's motion for reconsideration is denied.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mahoney's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.