Dekom v. Fannie Mae et al

Filing 249

ORDER denying 226 Motion to Compel; denying 226 Motion to Substitute Party. ; denying 226 Motion to Stay; denying 235 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 237 Motion to Compel: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Moreover, the related motions to substitute a party are moot in light of Judge Bianco's order dismissing this action. Finally, plaintiff's address is properly noted on the dock et. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as plaintiff has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SThe Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be t aken in good faith. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the docket sheet containing this Order to plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 9/26/2019. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
MARTIN DEKOM, et al.
Plaintiffs,
- against -

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
17-CV-2712 (RRM) (ARL)

FANIE MAE et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Martin Dekom seeks reconsideration of the March 28, 2019 Order Honorable
Joseph F. Bianco, adopting in its entirety the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Arlene R. Lindsay, and dismissing this action. See Doc. No. 234. Plaintiff’s request is denied.
Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Butto v. Collecto Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d
491, 494 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Trans-Pro Logistic Inc. v. Coby Electronics Corp., No. 05CV-1759 (CLP), 2010 WL 4065603, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A party requesting reconsideration must adduce controlling law or facts that were
overlooked by the Court that might materially have influenced its conclusion. See Shrader v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); Perez v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., No.
10-CV-2697 (RRM) (RML), 2013 WL 500448, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2013). Moreover, “[a]
motion for reconsideration may not . . . be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already
decided by the Court.” Webb v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-5145 (CBA), 2011 WL 5825690,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011) (quoting Davidson v. Scully, 172 F.Supp.2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y.
2001)). Plaintiff’s request does not demonstrate any clear error, highlight a change in controlling
law, or present new evidence. See Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. Colibri Corp., 739 F.Supp.2d

143, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). In fact, plaintiff’s motion “reiterates the arguments of his Opposition
and his filed Objections here, incorporating them verbatim by reference to those documents.”
Pl. Mtn. (Doc. No. 235) at 4. Nor does the motion establish that reconsideration is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice. Id. As such, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of Judge Bianco’s
Order dismissing this action is denied.1
A certificate of appealability shall not issue as plaintiff has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court certifies
that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order, to plaintiff and
note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 26, 2019

1

Roslynn R. Mauskopf
_________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

Plaintiff asserts a number of allegations that are wholly conclusory and unsupported by any fact or record
evidence, including allegations directed to the manner in which Judge Bianco handled this action. As such, they are
wholly without foundation and will not be addressed.