Opinion
97 Civ. 3399 (JSM).
March 4, 2003
OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The purpose of a motion to reargue is not to start a new round of arguments in which a party can simply make new arguments which should have been made originally or repeat arguments rejected by the Court in its original decision. I fully endorse the statements of Judge Mukasey in McMahon Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin Jenrette Securities Corp., 727 F. Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) to the effect that a motion for reargument is not to give the losing party an opportunity to advance new facts and theories in response to the Court's rulings. Nor should the Court be expected to wade through lengthy papers that simply reiterate in slightly different form the arguments made in the party's original papers. Motions to reargue aree appropriate only when "new facts [have] come to light or . . . it appears that controlling precedents were overlooked." Weissman v. Fruchtman, 659 F. Supp. 547 (1987). Plaintiff's motion fails to satisfy this standard.