In Re: Kossoff PLLC

Filing 18

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration re 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 11 Order Dismissing Appeal. filed by Mitchell H. Kossoff. Appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied for the reasons stated in App ellee's opposition brief. (See Dkt. No. 16 (21-CV-9938).) Appellant has failed to demonstrate, as required, that the Court overlooked controlling decisions of law or made clear errors of law. See, e.g., Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Moreover, it is clear that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion or err in holding Appellant in contempt. Accordingly, Appellant's motions for reconsideration are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Number 9 (21- CV-9924) and Docket Number 12 (21-CV-9938). So Ordered. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 1/11/2022) (js)

Case 1:21-cv-09938-JPO Document 18 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE:

21-CV-9924 (JPO)

KOSSOFF PLLC,

21-CV-9938 (JPO)
Appellant.

ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Appellant Mitchell H. Kossoff has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s orders
directing the Clerk of Court to close the case and dismiss Appellant’s appeal as moot. (Dkt. No.
9 (21-CV-9924); Dkt. No. 12 (21-CV-9938).)
Appellant had originally filed for an emergency motion to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s
decision ordering him held in contempt if he failed to make appropriate filings on or before
November 30, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1 (21-CV-9924); Dkt. No. 1 (21-CV-9938). On December 2,
2021, this Court entered orders denying Appellant’s motion. (Dkt. No. 7 (21-CV-9924); Dkt.
No. 10 (21-CV-9938).) On December 21, 2021, the Court sua sponte entered orders dismissing
these cases as moot. (Dkt. No. 8 (21-CV-9924); Dkt. No. 11 (21-CV-9938).)
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied for the reasons stated in Appellee’s
opposition brief. (See Dkt. No. 16 (21-CV-9938).) Appellant has failed to demonstrate, as
required, that the Court overlooked controlling decisions of law or made clear errors of law. See,
e.g., Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Moreover, it is clear that the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion or err in holding Appellant in contempt.

1

Case 1:21-cv-09938-JPO Document 18 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, Appellant’s motions for reconsideration are DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Number 9 (21-CV-9924)
and Docket Number 12 (21-CV-9938).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2021
New York, New York
____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

2