Yefimova v. bank trustco

Filing 14

DECISION AND ORDER denying Pltf's 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 10/11/17. (Copy served via regular mail)(sfp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
LYUBOV YEFIMOVA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

1:17-CV-403
(TMJ/TWD)

BANK TRUSTCO,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Decision and Order, dkt. # 11,
adopting the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Danks,
which proposed dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction and as frivolous. See dkt. # 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint concerned allegations
of misconduct and theft on the part of the defendant bank, which Plaintiff alleges turned
her money over to thieves.
When a party files a motion for reconsideration, “[t]he 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.”
Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Such a m otion is “not a
vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a

rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking ‘a second bite at the apple[.]’” Analytical
Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2012 ) (quoting Sequa
Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998)).
Plaintiff’s motion does not offer legal arguments that address ways that Judge
Dancks’ decision overlooked controlling legal precedents or ignored relevant facts
alleged in the Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff accuses Judge Dancks of taking the side of
the alleged thieves, who she alleges have a history of buying off judges. Such
arguments do not raise any grounds for reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s motion, dkt. #
11, will be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:October 11, 2017