Pfohl Brothers Landfill Site S. Comm. v. Browning Ferris

Full title: PFOHL BROTHERS LANDFILL SITE STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff, v. BROWNING…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: May 29, 2003

95-CV-956A (W.D.N.Y. May. 29, 2003)

Opinion

95-CV-956A

May 29, 2003

ORDER

RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge

Currently before the Court is the motion of defendants Allied Waste Systems, Inc. and GSX Polymers, Inc., pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for reconsideration of the Court's Order filed March 28, 2003, adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio.

Reconsideration is appropriate only where the moving party establishes: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See Virgin Atlantic Airways v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 820 (1992). With respect to the third of these criteria, to justify review of a decision, the Court must "have a clear conviction of error on a point that is certain to recur." United States v. Adegbite, 877 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 1989) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Motions for reconsideration "must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court." Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp.2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citations omitted). Motions for reconsideration that simply rehash old arguments and fail to "identif[y] any new data or controlling law that might reasonably be expected to alter [the] prior result" will be denied. See United States v. Allied Signal, Inc., 72 F. Supp.2d 29, 31 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).

Here, defendants' motion for reconsideration does not cite any intervening change in controlling law or the availability of new evidence. Nor have defendants shown the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Defendants simply rehash arguments that have already been put forth and that have already been fully considered and rejected by both this Court and Magistrate Judge Foschio. Accordingly, the Court denies defendants' motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.