Boykins v. Lopez et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Reconsideration re 23 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 22 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by City of Newburgh. The Court grants the City's motion for reconsideration and dismisses the excessive force claim against the City in order to "correct a clear error" in its earlier Opinion. Alvarez, 2017 WL 6033425 at *2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. The amended complaint should contai n appropriate changes to remedy the deficiencies identified in this Order and the Court's Opinion. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint will replace, not supplement, his original Complaint, and therefore must contain all of the cla ims, factual allegations, and exhibits that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30-day deadline, his claims may be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion, (Dkt. No. 23), and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 11/17/22) (yv)

Case 7:21-cv-02831-KMK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TYRONE BOYKINS,
Plaintiff,
No. 21-CV-02831 (KMK)
v.
ORDER
OFFICER ANGEL LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is the City of Newburgh’s (the “City”) Motion for Reconsideration (the
“Motion”), (see Mot. for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 23)), seeking reconsideration of the Court’s
June 27, 2022 Opinion and Order granting the City’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Opinion”), (see
Op. & Order (“2022 Op.”) (Dkt. No. 22)).1
“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.

1

Plaintiff brought suit against Officer Angel Lopez; Officer Joseph Palermo; and Officer
Parades (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and also against the City and City of
Newburgh Police Department (the “Police Department”). (See Compl. at 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) The
City filed the Motion to Dismiss, which addressed the claims against the City, the Police
Department, and the Individual Defendants. (See Mem of Law in Supp. of Dismissal (“Def’s
Mem.”) at 1–2 (Dkt. No. 19).)

Case 7:21-cv-02831-KMK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 4

1995); see also In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543, 2017 WL
3443623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) (“It is well established that the rules permitting motions
for reconsideration must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive
arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [c]ourt.” (citation omitted)); Leith v.
Emerson, No. 05-CV-7867, 2007 WL 9818914, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) (“Rule 6.3 is
narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive
arguments on issues that have been thoroughly [considered] by the court.” (quotation marks
omitted)). A movant may not “rely upon facts, issues, or arguments that were previously
available but not presented to the court.” Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp. 3d 522, 523
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). Nor is a motion for reconsideration “the proper avenue for the submission of
new material.” Sys. Mgmt. Arts Inc. v. Avesta Techs., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 519, 521 (S.D.N.Y.
2000). “Rather, to be entitled to reconsideration, a movant must demonstrate that the Court
overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying
motion, which, had they been considered might reasonably have altered the result reached by the
[C]ourt.” Arthur Glick, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 405 (citation omitted); Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257
(same). In other words, “[a] motion for reconsideration should be granted only 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)); see also
Intergit, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 523 (same).
The Court finds that the City’s Motion meets this high bar. In its Memorandum of Law,
the City requested that the Court dismiss the Complaint against the City and also dismiss all but

2

Case 7:21-cv-02831-KMK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 4

the excessive force claim against the Individual Defendants: “This memorandum of law is in
support of the City of Newburgh's motion to dismiss the [C]omplaint against it as well as the
false arrest, denial of medical assistance and perjury claims.” (Def’s Mem. at 2; see also id. at
10 (“[T]he entire [C]omplaint should be dismissed against the City of Newburgh for failure to
state a claim”).) In its Opinion, the Court stated that “all of Plaintiff’s claims against the City are
dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, which the City did not move to dismiss.”
(See 2022 Op. at 22) However, as the City has pointed out, the Court’s determination appears to
have been based on a misapprehension of the City’s requested relief. (See Mot. for
Reconsideration at 3.)
The Court grants the City’s motion for reconsideration and dismisses the excessive force
claim against the City in order to “correct a clear error” in its earlier Opinion. Alvarez, 2017 WL
6033425 at *2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.
The amended complaint should contain appropriate changes to remedy the deficiencies identified
in this Order and the Court’s Opinion. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint will
replace, not supplement, his original Complaint, and therefore must
contain all of the claims, factual allegations, and exhibits that Plaintiff wishes the Court to
consider. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30-day deadline, his claims may be dismissed with
prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion, (Dkt.
No. 23), and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

3

Case 7:21-cv-02831-KMK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 4

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2022
White Plains, New York

KENNETH M. KARAS
United States District Judge

4