The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
Currently pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Sunil P. George's ("Plaintiff") motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 2, 2012 Order (the "February 2012 Order") and the Court's January 2, 2013 Memorandum and Order (the "January 2013 Order"). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case, which are detailed in the Court's January 2013 Order. Briefly, Plaintiff commenced this action on November 10, 2011 against Kings County Hospital Center ("KCHC" or "Defendant") alleging violations of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117 ("ADA"). Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2001 until June or July 2008. (Compl. at 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that in November 2006, his primary care physician diagnosed him with depression, anger, and Bipolar disorder and recommended that Plaintiff see a psychiatrist. (Compl. at 5 and Ex. B.) Thereafter, Plaintiff began receiving treatment from a psychiatrist and thus sought a request for leave from his employment under the Family Medical Leave Act. (Compl. Ex. D.) According to Plaintiff, even though Defendant was aware that Plaintiff had sought leave, Defendant began procedures to terminate Plaintiff's employment for unauthorized absences. (Compl. Exs. E, F.)
On July 10, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before an Administrative Law Judge and signed a Stipulation of Settlement agreeing to resign from his position. (Compl. Ex. G.) However, Plaintiff alleges that this Stipulation of Settlement is "null and void" due to Plaintiff's mental condition and that Defendant should have reinstated him.
II. Procedural Background
Shortly after Plaintiff commenced this case, he moved for the appointment of counsel. On February 2, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion, finding that given the procedural hurdles Plaintiff faced in bringing his case, particularly issues of timeliness, "his claim is unlikely to be of substance, and, thus, his chances of success are highly dubious." (February 2012 Order at 8.)
Plaintiff thus continued to litigate his case pro se and, on June 1, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a comprehensive, though ultimately unsuccessful, opposition to the motion. (Pl.'s Opp. Br., Docket Entry 13.) The Court determined that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred, granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff has since filed the current motion for reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration may be brought pursuant to
Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3. See Wilson v. Pessah, No. 05-CV-3143, 2007 WL 812999, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2007). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party believes the Court overlooked important "matters or controlling decisions" that would have influenced the prior decision. Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Reconsideration is not a proper tool to repackage and relitigate arguments and issues already considered by the Court in deciding the original motion. See United States v. Gross, No. 98-CR-0159, 2002 WL 32096592, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002) ("A party may not use a motion to reconsider as an opportunity to reargue the same points raised previously."). Nor is it proper to raise new arguments and issues. See Lehmuller v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 982 F. Supp. 132, 135 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). ...