Ali v. Westchester Medical Center et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration. Alis March 30, 2021 motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on April 1, 2021) (vs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
:
AMRO ALI, M.D.,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER and NEW
:
YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
--------------------------------------- X

19cv8324 (DLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

APPEARANCES
For the plaintiff:
Robert Sadowski
Sadowski Katz, LLP
800 Third Ave, 28th Floor
New York, NY 1002
For the defendants
Paul Millis
Daniel Rinaldi
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.
990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 300
P.O. Box 9194
Garden City, NY 11530
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On March 30, 2021, plaintiff Amro Ali moved for
reconsideration of the March 17, 2021 Opinion (the “March 17
Opinion”), which granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
The March 17 Opinion is incorporated by reference, and
familiarity with it is assumed.

See Ali v. Westchester Med.

Ctr., No. 19CV8324 (DLC), 2021 WL 1022615 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17,
2021).

“[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the

moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked.”

Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., No. 19-3376-CV, 2021

WL 922756, at *11 (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2021) (citation omitted).
“A party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only
when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
omitted).

Id. (citation

A motion for reconsideration 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 Surv., Inc. v. Tonga Partners,

L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

The

decision to grant or deny the motion for reconsideration is
within “the sound discretion of the district court.”

Aczel v.

Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

The

standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is “strict.”
Cho, No. 19-3376-CV, 2021 WL 922756, at *11.
Ali has not satisfied the standard for a motion for
reconsideration.

Ali first argues that the March 17 Opinion

misapplied the law relating to “stray comments” when assessing
Dr. Thaddeus Wandel’s comments and erred in not finding that the
comments are direct evidence of discriminatory animus.

2

A

disagreement with the Opinion’s analysis is not a ground for
reconsideration.

See March 17 Opinion, at *5 (discussing stray

comments).
Ali next states that the Opinion impermissibly assessed
Wandel’s credibility.

It did not assess Wandel’s credibility.

The March 17 Opinion considered Wandel’s two comments in the
light most favorable to Ali and -- citing numerous New York
state court decisions -- determined that those comments
constituted stray remarks.

Id.

Finally, Ali complains that the March 17 Opinion rejected
his argument that the procedural irregularities in the
appointment process were evidence of discrimination.

Again, a

disagreement with the Opinion’s analysis is not a ground for
reconsideration.

The Opinion addressed the issue of

irregularities and rejected the plaintiff’s argument.

Id. at

*5.
Conclusion
Ali’s March 30, 2021 motion for reconsideration is denied.

Dated:

New York, New York
April 1, 2021

3