Laricchiuta et al v. Nassau County Interim Finance Authority et al
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, the following motions for reconsideration are DENIED: Carver action, Docket Entry 135; Donohue action, Docket Entry 77; Sullivan action, Docket Entry 91. In case number 11-CV-2743, the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to replace John Jaronczyk with Brian Sullivan as outlined in footnote 1. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/8/2018. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
JAMES CARVER, as President of the Nassau
County Police Benevolent Association,
GARY LEARNED, as President of the
Superior Officers Association of Nassau
County, and THOMAS R. WILLDIGG, as
President of the Nassau County Police
Department Detectives’ Association, Inc.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
11-CV-1614(JS)(GRB)
-againstNASSAU COUNTY INTERIM FINANCE AUTHORITY,
RONALD A. STACK, LEONARD D. STEINMAN,
ROBERT A. WILD, CHRISTOPHER P. WRIGHT,
GEORGE J. MARLIN, THOMAS W. STOKES, in
their official capacities as directors/
members of the Nassau County Interim
Finance Authority; EDWARD MANGANO, in his
official capacity as County Executive of
Nassau County; County of Nassau; and
GEORGE MARAGOS, in his official capacity
as Nassau County Comptroller,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------X
JERRY LARICCHIUTA, as Local President
of CSEA Nassau County Local 830; DANNY
DONOHUE, as President of the Civil Service
Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
AFSCMA, AFL-CIO; and CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
Plaintiffs,
-againstNASSAU COUNTY INTERIM FINANCE AUTHORITY;
RONALD A. STACK, as Chairman and Director
of the Nassau County Interim Finance
Authority; GEORGE J. MARLIN, LEONARD D.
STEINMAN, THOMAS W. STOKES, ROBERT A. WILD
and CHRISTOPHER P. WRIGHT, as Directors
11-CV-1900(JS)(GRB)
of the Nassau County Interim Finance
Authority; EDWARD MANGANO, in his
official capacity as County Executive
of Nassau County; and GEORGE MARAGOS,
in his official capacity as Nassau County
Comptroller; and the COUNTY OF NASSAU,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------X
BRIAN SULLIVAN,1 as President of the
Nassau County Sheriff’s Correction Officers
Benevolent Association, Inc., and NASSAU
COUNTY SHERIFF’S CORRECTION OFFICERS
BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
11-CV-2743(JS)(GRB)
-againstNASSAU COUNTY INTERIM FINANCE AUTHORITY;
RONALD A. STACK, as Chairman and Director
of the Nassau County Interim Finance
Authority; GEORGE J. MARLIN, LEONARD D.
STEINMAN, THOMAS W. STOKES, ROBERT A. WILD
and CHRISTOPHER P. WRIGHT, as Directors
of the Nassau County Interim Finance
Authority; EDWARD MANGANO, in his official
capacity as County Executive of Nassau
County; and GEORGE MARAGOS, in his official
capacity as Nassau County Comptroller;
and the COUNTY OF NASSAU,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
PBA
Alan M. Klinger, Esq.
Dina Kolker, Esq.
Shira A. Scheindlin, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, New York 10038
John Jaronczyk no longer holds the office of President of the
union and Plaintiffs in this case ask that the caption be
amended to reflect the name of the new President, Brian
Sullivan. That request is GRANTED.
1
2
CSEA
Aaron E. Kaplan, Esq.
Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.
143 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12210
COBA
Howard G. Wien, Esq.
Koehler & Isaacs, LLP
61 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Defendants:
NIFA
Christopher J. Gunther, Esq.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
Four Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Nassau County
and Nassau County
Defendants
Marc S. Wenger, Esq.
Ana C. Shields, Esq.
Jackson Lewis P.C.
58 South Service Road, Suite 250
Melville, New York 11747
Barbara E. Van Riper, Esq.
Joseph Nocella, Esq.
Nassau County Attorney’s Office
1 West Street
Mineola, New York 11501
SEYBERT, District Judge:
On
April
26,
2018,
this
Court
granted
Defendants’
motions for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ motions for
summary judgment.
Presently before the Court are motions for
reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs in each case.
For the reasons
set forth below, those motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The
Court
assumes
familiarity
with
the
facts
and
procedural history of these cases, which are set forth in detail
3
in the Court’s April 26, 2018 Order (the “April 2018 Order”).
See
Carver action, Docket Entry 132; Donohue action, Docket Entry 75;
Sullivan action, Docket Entry 89.
In brief, the Court ruled that
a wage freeze ordered by Defendant Nassau County Interim Finance
Authority (“NIFA”) was an administrative act, not legislative, and
thus was not a law within the meaning of the Contracts Clause of
the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs
in
all
three
cases
reconsideration of the April 2018 Order.
motions.2
have
moved
for
Defendants oppose the
There is significant overlap in the arguments presented
by all Plaintiffs.
following contentions:
Their arguments can be distilled to the
(1) the Court misapplied or misinterpreted
the case Buffalo Teachers Fed’n v. Tobe, 464 F.3d 362 (2d Cir.
2006); (2) the Court erroneously found that NIFA’s action did not
constitute a law within the meaning of the Contracts Clause; (3)
the Court’s decision removed the only avenue for constitutional
review of a state action; and (4) there was an intervening change
of controlling law.
The NIFA Defendants did not submit their own papers in
opposition, but submitted a letter indicating that they join
with the arguments made by the County Defendants in their
papers.
2
4
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standards
“A motion for reconsideration should only be granted
when the [movant] 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A
motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party
believes
that
controlling
decision.
the
Court
decisions’”
overlooked
that
would
important
have
“‘matters
influenced
the
or
prior
Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151
(S.D.N.Y. 1999) (quoting Local Civil Rule 6.3).
The standard for granting reconsideration is “strict”
and generally will 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.’”
Meyer v. Kalanick, 185 F.
Supp. 3d 448, 451–52 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Schrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Reconsideration
is not, however, a proper tool to repackage arguments and issues
already considered by the Court in deciding the original motion.
United States v. Gross, No. 98-CR-0159, 2002 WL 32096592, at *4
(E.D.N.Y.
Dec.
5,
2002)
(“A
party
5
may
not
use
a
motion
to
reconsider as an opportunity to reargue the same points raised
previously.”). Nor is it proper to raise new arguments and issues.
Lehmuller v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 982 F. Supp. 132, 135
(E.D.N.Y. 1997) (collecting cases).
II.
The Pending Motions
Upon review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court finds
that they have failed to meet their burden.
The first three
arguments concern the Court’s interpretation of Buffalo Teachers’,
the finding that NIFA acted administratively, and the availability
of court review.
All these issues were raised previously and
addressed by the Court in the April 2018 Order.
Plaintiffs are
attempting to rehash the same arguments that this Court decided
previously, or focus on points they belatedly feel that they may
not have emphasized sufficiently in an attempt to support arguments
already rejected.
They have not raised any arguments warranting
reconsideration of those determinations.
Plaintiffs’ final argument concerns the impact of a
recent case by the New York Court of Appeals that was decided after
briefing in these three cases was completed, but before the April
2018 Order was issued.
See In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan
Disaster Site Litig., 30 N.Y.3d 377, 89 N.E.3d 1227, 67 N.Y.S.3d
547 (2017).
Although Plaintiffs did not seek to supplement their
briefing when this decision was issued, they now argue that this
6
case
presents
an
intervening
change
in
mandates a different result in these cases.
controlling
law
that
The Court disagrees.
In the World Trade Center case, the New York Court of
Appeals addressed a question certified by the Second Circuit-whether a public benefit corporation should be treated like the
State
for
purposes
of
the
capacity
constitutionality of a state statute.
N.Y.3d at 383.
to
challenge
the
World Trade Center, 30
This issue is not present here, and thus the
holding on the issue does not represent an intervening change in
controlling law affecting the cases before this Court.
The
language in the World Trade Center case cited by Plaintiffs is the
court’s general discussion of the nature of public corporations
and
derives
from
earlier
sources.
See
id.
at
387-90.
As
Defendants note, the Plaintiffs previously cited that language in
its earlier submissions.
Accordingly, reliance on the World Trade
Center decision is simply another attempt to repackage arguments
from the prior, unsuccessful motions.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the following motions for
reconsideration are DENIED:
Carver action, Docket Entry 135;
Donohue action, Docket Entry 77; Sullivan action, Docket Entry 91.
7
In case number 11-CV-2743, the Clerk of the Court is
directed to amend the caption to replace John Jaronczyk with Brian
Sullivan as outlined in footnote 1.
SO ORDERED
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
August
8 , 2018
Central Islip, New York
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?