Makhnevich v. Bougopoulos et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 87 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the court denies plaintiff's 87 motion for reconsideration. The parties are still directed to meet, confer, and file a status letter by July 31, 2019 informing the court how they wish to proceed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on the pro se plaintiff and note service on the docket. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/19/2019. (Spriggs, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
STACY MAKHNEVICH,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against-

18-CV-285 (KAM)(VMS)

GREGORY S. BOUGOPOULOS; NOVICK,
EDELSTEIN, LUBELL, REISMAN, WASSERMAN &
LEVENTHAL, P.C.; BOARD OF MANAGERS OF
THE 2900 OCEAN CONDOMINIUM; and BRYANT
TOVAR,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On November 19, 2018, the court granted a motion by
pro se plaintiff Stacy Makhnevich (“Makhnevich” or “plaintiff”)
to amend her original complaint against defendants Gregory
Bougopoulos (“Bougopoulos”); Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman,
Wasserman & Leventhal, P.C. (“the Novick firm”); and the Board
of Managers of the 2900 Ocean Condominium (“the Board”).

(Dkt.

Entry dated Nov. 19, 2018; ECF No. 58, Amended Complaint (“Am.
Compl.”).)

The amended complaint, among other things, added

Bryant Tovar (“Tovar”) as a defendant to this action.

On July

9, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the first
amended complaint and dismissed the Board as a defendant from

1

this case.

(ECF No. 86, Memorandum & Order dated July 9, 2019

(“July 9, 2019 Order”).)
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to
for reconsideration.

(ECF No. 87, Motion for Reconsideration of

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (“Mot. for Reconsideration”).)

For the

reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration.
LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Motion to Reconsider
“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.’”

Kolel

Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr.,
729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Virgin Atl. Airways,
Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

“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.”
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
“[A] motion to reconsider should not
2

be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an
issue already decided.”

Id.
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states that the court denied her motion to
amend the first amended complaint because the court rejected the
premise of her proposed amendment, which argued that the Board
violated the FDCPA by charging her for an “ex-parte illegal oral
argument” in state court.
at 2.)

(ECF No. 87, Mot. for Reconsideration

Plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its

order because she has additional evidence that was not available
at the time she filed her motion to amend the amended complaint
and that supports her argument that the state court proceeding
occurred ex parte and was illegal.

(Id. at 2-4.)

The court denies the motion for reconsideration.
There has been no change in controlling law and there is no
clear error or manifest injustice that needs to be corrected.
Plaintiff purports to identify new evidence, but has not done
so.

Rather, plaintiff has provided this court with a filing she

submitted in state court after she filed her motion to amend in
this case.

(See ECF No. 88, Declaration in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Reconsideration Decl.”)
at 2; ECF No. 88-1, Exhibit A, Appellant’s Brief (“Ex. A”).)
This is not evidence.

Even considering the assertions made in

plaintiff’s state court brief, the court does not find any new
3

evidence.

Plaintiff’s brief merely refers to past state court

proceedings and contains factual allegations regarding events
which occurred prior to the filing of her motion to amend the
amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks to relitigate an issue that has
already been decided and her motion, therefore, should be
denied.

Moreover, although the order denying amendment

addressed the court’s concerns over plaintiff’s assertions
regarding the impropriety of the state court hearing, the court
held that the amendment was futile because the Board is not an
entity whose conduct is covered by FDCPA.
2019 Order at 8-10.)

(ECF No. 86, July 9,

Nothing in plaintiff’s current motion

changes the court’s conclusion on the Board’s FDCPA liability.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

The court’s previous

order that the parties are directed to meet, confer, and file a
status letter informing the court how they wish to proceed by
July 31, 2019 is still in effect.

4

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a
copy of this Memorandum and Order on the pro se plaintiff and
note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2019
Brooklyn, New York
_________/s/_________________
HON. KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

5