Opinion
21-CV-8537 (JMF)
06-21-2022
FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS B. D'AGOSTINO, SR. et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge
On June 1, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint or substitute new motions papers. Docket No. 84. On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for reconsideration of that Order. Docket No. 88. As Plaintiffs present no valid grounds for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED. See, e.g., Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is well-settled that [a motion for reconsideration] is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple. Rather, 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.” (internal quotation marks, citations, ellipsis, and alterations omitted)).
Although the motion is accompanied by an affidavit, see ECF No. 89, Local Civil Rule 6.3 prohibits affidavits on a motion for reconsideration “unless directed by the Court.”
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 88.
SO ORDERED.