Opinion
08-CV-2456 (MKB)
01-25-2013
MARYAM AYAZI, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
On December 1, 1998, Plaintiff Maryan Ayazi, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, Ayazi v. N. Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 98-CV-7461 ("Ayazi I"), in which she alleged violations of the ADA and the Due Process Clause. United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis dismissed the Ayazi I complaint in 2006, and, on June 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant action, raising substantially similar claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and Judge Garaufis granted Defendants' motion to dismiss but gave Plaintiff leave to amend certain claims. Ayazi v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ ., No.08 Civ. 2456, 2011 WL 441774, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2011). Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, which Defendants then moved to dismiss. On September 28, 2012, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Ayazi v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ, No. 08 Civ. 2456, 2012 WL 4503257, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012). Plaintiff timely moved for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
This action was reassigned to the undersigned on March 23, 2012.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Ayazi I, and the case was reopened in 2009. A jury trial was held in Ayazi I, and the jury rendered a verdict for Defendant on all claims.
--------
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration "is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Tramp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Local Rule 6.3 (The moving party must "set[ ] forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked."). "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Hidalgo v. New York, No. 11 Civ. 5074, 2012 WL 3598878, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration "should not be used as a vehicle simply to voice disagreement with the Court's decision, . . . nor does it present 'an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected or an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made.'" Premium Sports Inc. v. Cornell, No. 10 Civ. 3753, 2012 WL 2878085, at *1 (S.D.N. Y. July 11, 2012) (citations and alteration omitted). Moreover, "it is well-settled that a party may not, on a motion for reconsideration, raise an argument for the first time." Image Processing Tech., LLC v. Canon Inc., No. 10 Civ. 3867, 2012 WL 253097, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2012) (citation, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).
Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds that she has failed to provide a proper basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff simply repeats arguments that she advanced in the underlying papers or raises arguments for the first time that relate to Ayazi I. "It is black letter law that a motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA v. Las Vegas Prof'l Football Ltd. P'ship, 409 F. App'x 401, 403 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff does not point to any "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED
____________________
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: January 25, 2013
Brooklyn, New York