United States District Court, N.D. New York
For Defendant: SAMUEL C. BRESLIN, ESQ., OF COUNSEL, HINCKLEY, ALLEN LAW FIRM, Albany, NY.
ROBERT A. SHARPE, ESQ., Ass't United States Attorney, OF COUNSEL, HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY.
DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge.
DECISION and ORDER
A period of nearly twenty-eight months elapsed between defendant Frank Moreno's (" Moreno" or " defendant" ) indictment in the Northern District of New York and his coincidental arrest during a routine traffic stop in New York City. During a December 13, 2013, detention hearing following Moreno's transfer to federal custody, defendant's counsel asserted his client's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and indicated his intent to move against the indictment on that basis.
On January 10, 2014, Moreno made his speedy trial motion. Although an opposition to that motion was due by January 24, 2014, the United States of America (the " Government" ) requested, and was granted, an extension of time until January 28, 2014, to respond. Oral argument on Moreno's speedy trial claim was eventually heard on Friday, February 7, 2014, in Utica, New York.
On February 19, 2014, this Court granted Moreno's motion to dismiss the indictment against him (the " February 19 Decision" or " Decision" ).
United States v. Moreno, 997 F.Supp.2d 165, 2014 WL 630701 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2014).
The Government now moves for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g). The defendant opposes. The motion was considered on its submissions without oral argument.
The Government contends the February 19 Decision: (1) improperly resolved factual disputes; (2) incorrectly determined the delay was " uncommonly long; " and (3) erroneously concluded Moreno had shown " sufficient" prejudice.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is " strict." Shrader v. CSX Transp.., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is neither a vehicle for securing a rehearing on the merits nor an opportunity to assert arguments that could and should have been made before the contested decision was issued. See id. Rather, it is an " extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of scare judicial resources," and will generally be denied unless " the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked, and which the movant could reasonably believe would have altered the court's original decision." Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. Colibri Corp., 739 F.Supp.2d 143, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, a previous ruling will only be reconsidered and vacated if: (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F.Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Social ...