United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
PITMAN United States Magistrate Judge.
letter dated June 22, 2017 (Docket Item ("D.I.")
194), plaintiff seeks reconsideration of my Opinion and Order
dated June 2, 2017 (D.I. 188) which denied plaintiff's
motion for sanctions against Gloria C. Phares, Esq. For the
reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration is denied.
for reconsideration are appropriate only under limited
circumstances. As explained by the late Honorable Peter K.
Leisure, United States District Judge, in Davidson v.
Scully, 172 F.Supp.2d 458, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2001):
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new
facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the
Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating
issues already decided by the Court. See Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A party
seeking reconsideration "is not supposed to treat the
court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in
which that party may then use such a motion to advance new
theories or adduce new evidence in response to the
court's rulings." Polsby v. St. Martin's
Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690, 2000 WL 98057, at *l
(S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000) (Mukasey, J.). Thus, a motion for
reconsideration "is not a substitute for appeal and
'may be granted only where the Court has overlooked
matters or controlling decisions which might have materially
influenced the earlier decision.'" Morales v.
Ouintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted).
See also Mahmud v. Kaufmann, 4 96 F.Supp.2d 266,
269-70 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Conner, D.J.). "A movant for
reconsideration bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that
there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that
new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."
Ouinn v. Altria Grp., Inc., 07 Civ. 8783 (LTS)(RLE),
2008 WL 3518462 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008) (Swain, D.J.),
citing Virgin Airways v. Nat'1 Mediation Bd.,
956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992).
is entitled to reargument under Local Rule 6.3 where she
"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." In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d
Cir. 2003) (citation omitted), abrogated on other
grounds, In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156, 167 (2d
Cir. 2010); accord Allied Mar., Inc. v. Rice Corp.,
361 F.Supp.2d 148, 149 & n.l (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Scheindlin,
motion for reconsideration generally may not advance
"new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented
to the Court." Torres v. Carry, 672 F.Supp.2d
346, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Marrero, D.J.), quoting
Davidson v. Scully, supra, 172 F.Supp.2d at
461. "These limitations serve to ensure finality and to
prevent losing parties from using motions for reconsideration
as a vehicle by which they may then plug the gaps of a lost
motion with additional matters." In re City of New
York, as Owner & Operator of M/V Andrew J. Barberi,
CV-03-6049 (ERK) (WP), 2008 WL 1734236 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
10, 2008), citing Zoll v. Jordache Enters. Inc., 01
Civ. 1339 (CSH), 2003 WL 1964054 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24,
2003) (Haight, D.J.); accord Cohn v. Metro. Life Ins.,
Co., 07 Civ. 0928 (HB), 2007 WL 2710393 at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 7, 2007) (Baer, D.J.).
addition to the foregoing substantive limitations, a motion
for reconsideration is subject to the procedural limitation
that it must be made within fourteen days of the issuance of
the order or decision in issue. Local Civil Rul 6.3.
motion suffers from a number of defects. First, it is
untimely. The Opinion and Order in issue was issued on June
2, 2017. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
signed on June 22, 2017, delivered to Federal Express that
day and delivered to the Court on June 26. Plaintiff's
failure to file the motion in a timely manner is sufficient
by itself to result in the motion's denial.
motion is also substantively defective. Plaintiff does not
identify any controlling facts or legal precedents that were
called to my attention in connection with the original motion
that I overlooked. Rather plaintiff seeks to offer new facts,
new arguments and even attaches several new exhibits to her
motion. As the authorities cited above teach, such practice
is clearly prohibited in connection with a motion for
I understand that plaintiff disagrees with my June 2 Opinion
and Order, a party's disagreement with a Court's
decision is simply not a basis for reconsideration.
for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of my June 2, 2017 Opinion and Order is
denied in all respects.