Day v. Benisovich

Filing 37

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration. See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 5/26/10. (Turner, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT STEWART DAY, Plaintiff, v. VLADIMIR BENISOVICH, Defendant. : : : : : : : : :

CASE NO. 3:09CV1079(RNC)

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pending before the court is the defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, doc. #32. reconsideration is "strict." F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The standard for granting a motion for Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 "The only permissible grounds on

which to grant a motion for reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Martin v.

Dupont Flooring Sys., No. 3:01 CV 2189(SRU), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373, *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004)(internal citations omitted). None of these factors have been satisfied. Rather, defendant

objects to the court's ruling (docs. #28 and #30), granting defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Assets (doc. #5), on grounds he could have advanced at a number of stages earlier in the proceedings: at a status conference before the hearing (doc. #11), in his pre-hearing brief (doc. #13), at the hearing (doc. #18), or in a post-hearing brief (doc. #20). A party cannot seek

reconsideration "to plug gaps in an original argument or to argue

in the alternative once a decision has been made."

Horsehead

Resource Dev. Co., Inc. v. B.U.S. Envtl. Serv., Inc.,928 F. Supp. 287, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). is DENIED. Even if the court were to reconsider, it would adhere to its prior ruling. The defendant did not offer evidence or even The defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, doc. #32,

argument to show that plaintiff's insurance payments constitute a collateral source under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-225a which would entitle defendant to a reduction of plaintiff's recovery after trial. Neither was there any evidence or argument as to whether

the insurance payments fall within the exception for "a collateral source for which a right of subrogation exists." Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-225a(a). Finally, the parties should note that even if these

payments did constitute a collateral source which would reduce the amount of the plaintiff's recovery, the court could entertain a motion to modify the prejudgment remedy issued. § 52-278k. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 26th day of May, 2010. Conn. Gen. Stat.

/s/ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge

2