Yefimova v. bank trustco

Filing 17

DECISION AND ORDER denying Pltf's 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 10/17/17. (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 a second time 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 subjectmatter jurisdiction and as frivolous. See dkt. # 16. Plaintiff’s Complaint raised
allegations of misconduct and theft on the part of the defendant bank, which Plaintiff
alleges turned her money over to thieves. Her present motion for reconsideration
repeats those allegations in brief form; Plaintiff appears to allege that two women
robbed her account at the Defendant bank and demands $2 million in damages.
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 offers no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. She simply
states additional facts which were available at the time she drew up her complaint.
Such arguments do not raise any basis for reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s motion, dkt. #
16, will be denied.
Plaintiff has now twice sought reconsideration by the Court without offering any
proper grounds. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff proceeds pro se and lacks a
full understanding of legal doctrines and procedures, the Court also notes that Plaintif f
has also repeatedly made the same assertions to the Court and demanded that the
Court accept those assertions despite detailed opinions ex plaining why the Court has
concluded that no relief is available to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s avenue to challenge these
decisions is an appeal that points to errors the Court m ay have made. Any further
motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision would be both frivolous and
vexatious and could expose the Plaintiff to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 and the Court’s inherent power to control its docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:October 17, 2017

2