Miller v. City of Ithaca, New York et al

Filing 301

DECISION AND ORDER denying Defendant's 289 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/7/2012. (amt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------CHRISTOPHER MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:10-cv-597

CITY OF ITHACA, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
By Decision and Order dated June 1, 2012 (Dkt. No. 288), familiarity with which is
presumed, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Defendant Byrd now moves for reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s
Decision and Order that denied summary judgment as to the claims against him. In support
of his motion, Defendant Byrd claims that the Court did not make any findings that he acted
with the necessary intent, or supervised with gross negligence, to sustain the claims against
him.
Defendant’s motion it denied because, as an initial matter, he fails to demonstrate
an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence not previously
available, or the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Shrader v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); Engels v. Vill. of Potsdam, 7:09-CV-785,
2009 WL 3077618 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2009). Thus, reconsideration is not appropriate.

Turning to the substance of Defendants’ motion, the Court did find a triable issue of
fact whether Byrd acted with the requisite intent based on the available circumstantial
evidence including: (1) that Plaintiff may have been assigned walking beats, the Commons
beat, or the Collegetown beat more frequently than other similarly situated officers (which
can suggest an improper motive by Byrd, who made the assignments); (2) Byrd
acknowledged changing Plaintiff’s beat assignments, although purportedly due to Plaintiff’s
behavioral issues; (3) the walking beats were considered undesirable and given to officers in
trouble with the administration; and (4) the change of assignments occurred close in time to
the July 2009 charge of discrimination. See Gorman-Bakos v. Cornells Co-op Extension of
Schenectady County, 252 F.3d 545, 554 (2d Cir. 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2012

-2-