United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sergei Chepilko, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
For Cigna Group Insurance, Defendant: Abigail Deborah Elrod, Fred N. Knopf, Michelle Marie Arbitrio, Wilson Elser, Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP(White Plains), White Plains, NY; Emily Anna Hayes, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, (WPls), White Plains, NY.
John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Sergei Chepilko, brought a breach of contract action against the defendant, Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York (" CLICNY" ), following CLICNY's decision to deny the plaintiff disability benefits for which he applied in 2002 pursuant to a Group Long-term Disability Insurance Policy (the " Policy" ) issued by CLICNY that Chepilko had through his former employer. This Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Chepilko v. Cigna Grp. Ins., No. 08 Civ. 4033, 2012 WL 2421536, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2012). The plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that decision.
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3. In deciding a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, the Court applies the same standards as those governing former Local Civil Rule 3(j). See United States v. Letscher, 83 F.Supp.2d 367, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (collecting cases). The moving party is required to demonstrate that the Court overlooked the controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion. See Walsh v. McGee, 918 F.Supp. 107, 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); In re Houbigant, 914 F.Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). This rule is " narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court." Walsh, 918 F.Supp. at 110; see also
Ackerman v. Ackerman, No. 10 Civ. 6773, 2013 WL 425549, at *1 (S.N.D.Y. February 4, 2013).
The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked any controlling decisions or any factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion.
The plaintiff alleges that that CLICNY fraudulently and in breach of its fiduciary duty failed to provide the plaintiff with information regarding the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff also alleges that his disabilities merit equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. These arguments were not raised in connection with the motion for summary judgment, and there is no basis for this Court to consider arguments raised for the first time on a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, these new ...