Opinion
No. 15CV278-LTS-DCF
04-06-2016
JONATHAN STEINBERG, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN M. ELKMAN, ALAN GERST, ROBERT E. MICHAEL & ANDREW A. CUOMO Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On February 22, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the motions of both Governor Cuomo and the individual defendants to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint in its entirety and ordered that this case be closed. (Docket Entry No. 39.) On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's February 22, 2016, decision. (Docket Entry No. 42.) Governor Cuomo filed a response to Plaintiff's motion on March 24, 2016. (Docket Entry No. 43.)
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. As an initial matter, the motion is untimely. The Local Civil Rules of this district require that "a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court's determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment." See S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3. The Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order on the Defendants' motion on February 22, 2016, and Plaintiff did not file his motion for reconsideration until March 22, 2016, well beyond the 14 day deadline for seeking reconsideration. Nor does Plaintiff's motion include a memorandum "setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which [Plaintiff] believes the Court has overlooked" as required by Local Rule 6.3. See S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3. Furthermore, Plaintiff's motion is meritless. Here, "[t]he plaintiff has failed to show that there were any issues of fact or law that the Court overlooked. While the plaintiff disagrees with the Court's decision, that is not a basis for reconsideration." Sorenson v. Friedman, No. 10CV4596-JGK, 2012 WL 1155099, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2012). Moreover, despite Plaintiff's attempt to do so, "a party may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court" on a motion for reconsideration. National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Stroh Cos., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. However, Plaintiff is a New York attorney, and therefore is not entitled to the special solicitude generally accorded to pro se plaintiffs. See, e.g., Godlove v. Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald, and Hahn, 903 F.2d 1145, 1148 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Ordinarily, we treat the efforts of pro se applicants gently, but a pro se lawyer is entitled to no special consideration."). --------
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. Docket Entry Number 42 is resolved. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York
April 6, 2016
/s/_________
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
United States District Judge