Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Superior Site Work, Inc. v. NASDI, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. New York

May 22, 2017

SUPERIOR SITE WORK, INC., DIVERSIFIED CONSTRUCTION CORP., HARRISON AVENUE PROPERTIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
NASDI, LLC, Defendant. NASDI, LLC, Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
FOUNDATION COMPANY, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Third Party Defendants.

          Zabell & Associates, P.C. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs By: Saul D. Zabell, Esq., Of Counsel

          The Law Office of John E. Osborn, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff By: Daniel H. Crow, Esq., Of Counsel

          Peckar & Abramson Attorneys for the Third Party Defendant Case Foundation Company By: Alan H. Winkler, Esq., Of Counsel

          New York City Law Department, Office of Corporation Counsel Corporation Counsel for Third Party Defendants the City of New York and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation By: Amanda M. Papandrea, Assistant Corporation Counsel

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

          ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge.

         This action arises out of a contract dispute between the parties. The contract concerned work related to the Ocean Breeze Indoor Athletic Facility in Staten Island, New York (the “Ocean Breeze Project”). The City of New York (the “City) and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (the “Parks Department”) contracted with NASDI, LLC (“NASDI”) to build the Ocean Breeze Project. NASDI allegedly subcontracted with Superior Site Work, Inc. (“Superior”), Diversified Construction Corp. (“Diversified”), and Case Foundation Company (“Case”). NASDI allegedly leased office space from Harrison Avenue Properties LLC (“Harrison”) during the project.

         On January 23, 2017, the Court granted a motion by Case, which also granted in part a motion by the City to hold the third party action in abeyance pending the outcome of certain New York State Supreme Court cases. Superior, Diversified, and Harrison requested similar relief in that they asked the Court to either strike or sever the third party complaint, but the Court denied that motion as moot.

         Presently before the Court is a motion by NASDI for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, asking the Court to amend its January 23, 2017 memorandum of decision and order to state that any breaches of contract are merely alleged breaches; to find that the third Colorado River factor does not favor abstention; and to therefore not hold the third party action in abeyance pending the outcome of the New York State actions. For the following reasons, NASDI's motion is denied in its entirety.

         I. DISCUSSION A. The Relevant Legal Standard

         Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides that:

Unless otherwise provided by the Court or by statute or rule (such as Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, 52, and 59), a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court's determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment. There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked. The time periods for the service of answering and reply memoranda, if any, shall be governed by Local Civil Rule 6.1(a) or (b), as in the case of the original motion. No oral argument shall be heard unless the Court directs that the matter shall be reargued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the Court.

Id. “The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can 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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Wilder v. News Corp., 2016 WL 5231819, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Liberty Media Corp. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., 861 F.Supp.2d 262, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); see also Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257 (using an abuse of discretion standard to judge a district court's decision on a motion for reconsideration).

         “[A] party may not advance new facts, issues[, ] or arguments not previously presented to the Court on a motion for reconsideration.” Steinberg v. Elkman, 2016 WL 1604764, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001)). Nevertheless, reconsideration may be granted because of “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Luv n' Care Ltd. v. Goldberg Cohen, LLP, 2016 WL 6820745, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hollander v. Members of the Bd. of Regents, 524 F. App'x 727, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order)); accord Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.