UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 2, 2012
HOWARD I. GINSBURG, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRADLEY MARC GINSBURG, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF ITHACA AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David N. Hurd United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
On March 15, 2012, a Memorandum--Decision and Order ("MDO") was filed granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 858412 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). On March 28, 2012, defendant City of Ithaca filed a motion for reconsideration of the MDO. Dkt. No. 36. The following day, defendant Cornell University joined this motion. Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff has responded. Dkt. No. 38.
In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, "[t]he moving party must '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.'" United States v. Bocio, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (Kahn, J.) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). The three grounds upon which such a motion may be granted include: "(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." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants concede there is neither new law nor new evidence to justify reconsideration. They instead argue that, without clarification, the MDO creates potential for manifest injustice. Specifically, defendants worry that two paragraphs constitute "binding determination of a rule of law" that decides the merits of the negligence claims against them.*fn1
This argument is unpersuasive. The MDO speaks for itself.
The parties are reminded that when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court is to accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Indeed, the MDO specifically noted that "[t]he following facts, taken from the amended complaint and documents incorporated by reference thereto, are assumed true for purposes of the motions for judgment on the pleadings." Ginsburg, 2012 WL 858412, at *1.
Accordingly, defendants' motion for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 36, 37) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.