Opinion
99 CIV. 11420 (DLC).
December 29, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 3, 2000, defendant Citibank N.A. ("Citibank") filed a motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2000, this Court converted the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion and granted it. The facts of the case are discussed therein and need not be repeated here. Plaintiff Makse Jewelry Inc. ("Makse") now timely moves for reconsideration of the Court's motion.
A motion for reconsideration should be granted only where the moving party demonstrates that the Court has overlooked factual matters or controlling decisions that were presented to it on the underlying motion. See Local Rule 6.3; Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); Cohen v. Koenig, 932 F. Supp. 505, 506-507 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Courts narrowly construe this standard and apply it strictly against the moving party so as to "dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court."Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 8833 (RPP), 2000 WL 235273, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2000). In addition, the moving party may not "advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court." Wiesner v. 321 West 16th Street Assoc., No. 00 Civ. 1423 (RWS), 2000 WL 1585680, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2000). The decision to grant or deny the motion is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Devlin v. Transportation Communications Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (citingMcCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this Court has overlooked factual matters or controlling decisions that were presented to it on the underlying motion. Rather, plaintiff reiterates old arguments, or makes new arguments which it could have — but did not — raise previously to this Court. For each of these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED: