Hughes v. Town of Bethlehem et al

Filing 38

SUMMARY ORDER that defendants' 34 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/10/2013. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
CHRISTOPHER A. HUGHES,
Plaintiff,

1:10-cv-1489
(GLS/RFT)

v.
TOWN OF BETHLEHEM et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher A. Hughes commenced this action against
defendants Town of Bethlehem and Police Chief Louis Corsi pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights of union
association1 and free speech. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending is
defendants’ motion for reconsideration. (See Dkt. No. 34.) For the
reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Motions for reconsideration proceed in the Northern District of New

1

Hughes’ freedom of association and freedom of speech claims are
subject to the same requirements. See Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89, 10203 (2d Cir. 2006).

York under Local Rule 7.1(g).2 “In order to prevail on a motion for
reconsideration, the movant must satisfy stringent requirements.” C-TC
9th Ave. P’ship v. Norton Co. (In re C-TC 9th Ave. P’ship), 182 B.R. 1, 2
(N.D.N.Y. 1995). A motion for 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). The prevailing rule
“recognizes only three possible grounds upon which motions for
reconsideration may be granted; they are (1) an intervening change in
2

Northern District of New York Local Rule 7.1(g) provides:

Unless FED. R. CIV. P. 60 otherwise governs, a party may file
and serve a motion for reconsideration or reargument no later
than FOURTEEN DAYS after the entry of the challenged
judgment, order, or decree. All motions for reconsideration
shall conform with the requirements set forth in L.R. 7.1(a)(1)
and (2). The briefing schedule and return date applicable to
motions for reconsideration shall conform to L.R. 7.1(b)(2). A
motion for reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s
determination of a non-dispositive matter shall toll the fourteen
(14) day time period to file objections pursuant to L.R. 72.1(b).
The Court will decide motions for reconsideration or
reargument on submission of the papers, without oral
argument, unless the Court directs otherwise.
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(g).
2

controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available,
or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
In re C-TC 9th Ave. P’ship, 182 B.R. at 3 (citation omitted). “[A] motion to
reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to
relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
Here, defendants have wholly failed to raise any basis for the court to
reconsider its prior rulings. They continue to assert the same arguments
previously addressed. In other words, they have not offered any
information—factual or legal—that would satisfy any of the three possible
grounds warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, the court denies the
motion.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 34)
is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 10, 2013
Albany, New York

3