Tashbook v. Petrucci

Filing 51

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration re 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 48 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, filed by Robert Tashbook. ENDORSEMENT: Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (see Dkt. No. 50), of this Court's Order Adopting Judge Davison's Report & Recommendation and denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (see Order (Dkt. No. 48). "Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.&q uot; Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen E. Corp., 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted), aff'd, 577 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2014). The standard for such motions is "strict" and "should not be gr anted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Instead, "[a] motion for reconsideration should only be granted when the [movant] identifi es an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Alvarez v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-5464, 2017 WL 6033425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017) (q uoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013)).Petitioner has not met this standard here. The Court has already considered and rejected Petitioner's implementation failure argument, (see Order 12-13), and because the Court determined that the Petition failed as a matter of law, (see id. at 14-15), none of Petitioner's factual disputes is material. Accordingly, Petitioner's reconsideration motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, (see Dkt. No. 50), and mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 5/6/22) (yv)

Download PDF
Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 10 of 11 51 05/06/22 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 50 Filed 04/28/22 Page 11 of 11 Case 7:20-cv-05318-KMK-PED Document 51 Filed 05/06/22 Page 11 of 11 Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (see Dkt. No. 50), of this Court's Order Adopting Judge Davison's Report & Recommendation and denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (see Order (Dkt. No. 48). "Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters." Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen E. Corp., 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted), aff'd, 577 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2014). The standard for such motions is "strict" and "should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Instead, "[a] motion for reconsideration should only be granted when the [movant] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Alvarez v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-5464, 2017 WL 6033425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017) (quoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013)). Petitioner has not met this standard here. The Court has already considered and rejected Petitioner's implementation failure argument, (see Order 12-13), and because the Court determined that the Petition failed as a matter of law, (see id. at 14-15), none of Petitioner's factual disputes is material. Accordingly, Petitioner's reconsideration motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, (see Dkt. No. 50), and mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. 5/6/2022

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?