Armatas v. Maroulleti et al

Filing 155

ORDER denying 149 Letter motion for reconsideration of the 148 Order denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions. SO ORDERED that plaintiff has failed to identify any facts or legal authority that the Court overlooked or misapprehended in its October 25, 2011 order. Therefore, plaintiffs motion is denied in its entirety. In accordance with Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties, including mailing a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff, and shall record such service on the docket. CM to pro se plaintiff on 12/13/2011. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 12/13/2011. (Florio, Lisa)

F' n,. r.,

u.s.

IN CU?F'i('fJ ::

Di3T''~iGr C\.:iu'·
•

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------){
PANAGIOTIS ARMATAS, as an individual and as
parent and guardian of ALE)(ANDROS
ARMA TAS and EV AGELOS,

'I

·· · "~r=
1

;...,

Dff=
Ny

'·-·'-"·

DEC 13 201L

••

*

L.ONG ISLAND o;: F.'GE
ORDER
08-CV -310 (SJF)(RER)

Plaintiff,
-againstELENA MAROULLETI, THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ERIC CHRISTOPHERSEN,
ROBERT EDWIN, STEVEN BORCHERS, ALVIN
GOMEZ, SGT. GOETZ, and CASEY ALPERT,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------){
FEUERSTEIN, J.

Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [Docket Entry No. 149] of the
Court's October 25, 2011 order, which denied plaintiff's motions for sanctions.
Motions for reconsideration in this district are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 ("Local
Rule 6.3"). Local Rule 6.3 is "narrowly construe[d] and strictly appl[ied] ... so as to avoid
duplicative rulings on previously considered issues and to prevent Rule 6.3 from being used to
advance different theories not previously argued, or as a substitute for appealing a final
judgment." Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 745 F.Supp.2d 379, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). "The
major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."
Virgin Atl. Airways Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation
1

-·
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[R]econsideration 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). Motions for reconsideration "are
committed to the sound discretion of the district court." East Coast Resources, LLC v. Town of
Hempstead, 707 F.Supp.2d 401,412-13 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
Plaintiff has failed to identify any facts or legal authority that the Court overlooked or
misapprehended in its October 25, 2011 order. Therefore, plaintiffs motion is denied in its
entirety. See Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. In accordance with Rule 77(d) ofthe Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties, including
mailing a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff, and shall record such service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

Sandra J. Feuer~~~._.,
united States D(Jct Judge
Dated:

December 13,2011
Central Islip, New York

2