Sasmor v. Powell et al

Filing 92

ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the annexed memorandum and order, Mr. Sasmor's motion for reconsideration is respectfully DENIED. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/30/2016. (Jacobson, Jonathan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
JON SASMOR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against: MEMORANDUM & ORDER
: NOT FOR PUBLICATION
STEVEN POWELL, Individually and as
:
City Marshal; CHAIM GOLDBERGER a/k/a/
: 11-CV-4645 (KAM)(JO)
HENRY GOLDBERG; HENRY MANAGEMENT,
:
LLC; ISAAC TEITELBAUM a/k/a ISAAC
:
TITALBAUM; ABRAHAM SCHNEEBALG; FERN
:
FISHER, Individually and as Deputy
:
Chief Administrative Judge for the
:
New York City Courts; and CAROL ALT,
:
Individually and as Chief Clerk of
:
the Civil Court of the City of New
:
York,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff

Jon

Sasmor

(“Mr.

Sasmor”)

commenced

this

action asserting claims under federal and state law arising from
the execution of certain eviction warrants pursuant to section
749(1) of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law
(“RPAPL”) at a building located at 287 Franklin Avenue (“287
Franklin”), in Brooklyn, New York, in which plaintiff had a lease
for one room. (ECF No. 1, Complaint.) The defendants include the
private management company that manages 287 Franklin on behalf of
the Ronald Henry Land Trust, along with the two trustees and one
of its employees (collectively, the “Private Defendants”); New
York City Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Fern Fisher, New York
1

City

Civil

Court

clerk

Carol

Alt

(collectively,

the

“City

Defendants”), and New York City Marshal Steven Powell, all of whom
at least nominally performed official functions relating to the
issuance and execution of the eviction warrants.
Each defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. (ECF Nos.
38, 45, 48.) The court subsequently adopted Magistrate Judge
Orenstein’s report and recommendation recommending dismissal of
all of Mr. Sasmor’s federal claims, and the Clerk entered judgment
accordingly.

(ECF

Recommendations,
4/2/13.)

The

Nos.

dated

Second

66,

Order

3/31/13,
Circuit

Adopting

67,

Clerk’s

affirmed

the

Report

Judgment
dismissal

and
dated

in

an

unpublished summary order. See Sasmor v. Powell, 554 F. App'x 67,
68 (2d Cir. 2014).
At

a

conference

on

December

5,

2014,

the

court

subsequently re-opened this case after plaintiff moved on November
16, 2014 (ECF No. 71) for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b) and for leave to amend his complaint based
on a related New York Appellate Court’s reversal of a Housing Court
ruling in an eviction matter that this court previously cited in
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 76.) This court reopened this action for the limited purpose of considering the
effect of the state appellate court decision that the Ronald Henry
Land Trust lacked the capacity to bring eviction proceedings
against Mr. Sasmor in state court. After Magistrate Judge Orenstein
2

again recommended dismissal of Mr. Sasmor’s federal claims by
Report and Recommendation dated July 20, 2015 (ECF No. 80), the
court adopted his recommendation over Mr. Sasmor’s objection, by
order dated September 17, 2015. (ECF Nos. 81-82.) The court again
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Sasmor’s
state-law claims. On September 18, 2015, judgment was entered
against plaintiff on his federal claims. (ECF No. 83.)
On September 30, 2015, Mr. Sasmor has filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s dismissal. (ECF Nos. 84-85.) Powell
and the Private Defendants opposed the motion for reconsideration.
(ECF Nos. 89-90.) Mr. Sasmor filed a reply. (ECF No. 91.)
BACKGROUND
The court assumes familiarity with the facts in this
action, which have been detailed in at least six written opinions
issued, inter alia, by this court, the magistrate judge, and the
Second Circuit. E.g., Sasmor v. Powell, No. 11-CV-4645, 2015 WL
5458009, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 20, 2015), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 11-CV-4645, 2015 WL 5458020 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2015);
Sasmor v. Powell, No. 11-CV-4645, 2013 WL 1335838, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2013), aff'd, 554 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2014); Sasmor v.
Powell, No. 11-CV-4645, 2011 WL 4460461, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26,
2011).
LEGAL STANDARD

3

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule
6.3.

In

general,

“[t]he

standard

for

granting

[a

motion

for

reconsideration] 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); see also Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc.
v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A
motion

for

reconsideration

should

be

granted

only

when

the

defendant identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error
or prevent manifest injustice.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to
be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation
of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec.
Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not
a vehicle for the relitigation of issues that were already decided.
See Darnley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No. 06-CV-4265, 2010 WL
1037971, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Sasmor challenges the court’s purported failure to
properly address:
4

(1)

His property rights;

(2)

Whether property can be held in an express trust’s
name;

(3)

The distinct standing requirements for his asserted
claims;

(4)

Qualified immunity for Powell;

(5)

An

inconsistency

in

the

issue

preclusion

determination; and
(6)

A clerical error in the judgment.

The court addresses Mr. Sasmor’s arguments in turn.
First, the most recent report and recommendation and
this court’s order adopting the report carefully analyzed Mr.
Sasmor’s

property

rights,

just

as

the

earlier

report

and

recommendation and order adopting it had. (ECF No. 61, at 10-15;
ECF No. 66, at 7-12; ECF No. 80, at 3-10; ECF No. 82, at 7-8.)
Second, Mr. Sasmor has not shown how the purported
“controlling” law to which he directs the court (ECF No. 85, at 67) represents an “intervening change of controlling law”; requires
the court “to correct a clear error” in its earlier decision; or
necessitates any other action to “prevent manifest injustice.”
Kolel Beth, 729 F.3d at 104.
Third,

the

court

has

considered

and

rejected

Mr.

Sasmor’s arguments regarding his Fourth Amendment rights, his
Equal Protection rights, his liberty interests, and his personal
5

property claims. (E.g., ECF No. 82, at 5 (Fourth Amendment; Equal
Protection;

liberty

interest);

ECF

No.

61,

at

15

(personal

property).)
Fourth, Mr. Sasmor’s qualified immunity arguments were
carefully analyzed by both the magistrate judge and this court.
(ECF No. 61, at 16 n.6; ECF No. 80, at 10-11; ECF No. 82, at 1214 & n.4.)
Fifth,
court’s

regarding

issue

preclusion

a

purported

inconsistency

determination,

a

in

motion

the
for

reconsideration is not a vehicle for seeking “clarification.” See
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 593
F. Supp. 2d 549, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), on reconsideration in part
(June 26, 2008) (“Plaintiffs' motion for ‘clarification’ is not
properly submitted under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which only allows
a ‘motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order.’ The
Rule does not allow a party to move for ‘clarification.’ Indeed,
the only obvious rule that allows for clarification of a court's
order is Rule 60 of the Federal Rules, but even this rule does not
permit the type of clarification that plaintiffs are seeking in
their motion.”).
Finally, Mr. Sasmor seeks a correction of the judgment
to identify five additional defendants in the text of the judgment.
The judgment clearly dismisses all of Mr. Sasmor’s federal claims
against all defendants. No correction is necessary.
6

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Sasmor’s motion for
reconsideration is respectfully DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 30, 2015
Brooklyn, New York
_________/s/________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

7