Micolo v. Fuller

13 Citing cases

  1. Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of N.Y.

    No. 18-CV-6588-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (quoting Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)).

  2. Freeland v. Findlay's Tall Timbers Distribution Ctr.

    No. 22-CV-6415-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2024)

    Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (“To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.”

  3. Murphy v. Cnty. of Chemung

    No. 18-CV-6628-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Micolo v. Fuller, No. 15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (quoting Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). If the moving party presents no legal authority or facts that the court failed to consider, then the motion to reconsider should be denied.

  4. Murphy v. City of Elmira

    No. 18-CV-6572-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2024)

    Accordingly, the Summary Judgment Order was not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Rule 60(b). See e.g., Micolo v. Fuller, No. 15-CV-6374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *1 n.1 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (motion for reconsideration of decision and order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment could not be motion under Rule 60(b) because it was not a final decision and judgment had not been entered); Burke v. Warren Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 916 F.Supp. 181, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (Rule 60(b) motion improper procedural vehicle for request to reconsider decision granting summary judgment in favor of some defendants). While Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' mistaken reliance on Rule 60(b) is grounds for denying the motion

  5. Murphy v. City of Elmira

    No. 18-CV-6572-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2023)

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Micolo v. Fuller, No. 15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (quoting Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). If the moving party presents no legal authority or facts that the court failed to consider, then the motion to reconsider should be denied.

  6. Townsend v. Livingston Cnty.

    No. 19-CV-6636-FPG (W.D.N.Y. May. 9, 2023)

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (quoting Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). Further, the Second Circuit has “limited district courts' reconsideration of earlier decisions under Rule 54(b) by treating those decisions as law of the case, which gives a district court discretion to revisit earlier rulings in the same case, subject to the caveat that ‘where litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.'” Coopers & Lybrand, 322 F.3d at 167 (quoting Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d Cir. 1964)).

  7. Biondolillo v. Livingston Corr. Facility

    No. 17-CV-6576-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023)

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Richard v. Dignean, 126 F.Supp.3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (quoting Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). Further, the Second Circuit has “limited district courts' reconsideration of earlier decisions under Rule 54(b) by treating those decisions as law of the case, which gives a district court discretion to revisit earlier rulings in the same case, subject to the caveat that ‘where litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.'”

  8. Tolliver v. Jordan

    19-CV-11823 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 1, 2021)   Cited 9 times

    See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” (emphasis added)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding....” (emphasis added)); see also Micolo v. Fuller, No. 15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) (collecting cases). Were the Court to consider Plaintiff's motion as one properly made under Rule 60(b)(1), it would be denied.

  9. Horn v. Med. Marijuana, Inc.

    Case # 15-CV-701-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Declining to address untimely Rule 12(c) motion where defendants "had an extensive period in which to challenge Plaintiffs' complaint, but they waited more than one year after the later deadline, when discovery had already been completed, to raise their arguments" and concluding that "consideration of motion would delay trial-even though a trial date has not been set-insofar as it would require further litigation on issues tangential to the merits"

    A litigant seeking reconsideration must set forth "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Richard v. Dignean, 126 F. Supp. 3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) ("To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'"). BACKGROUND

  10. Reyes v. Bellamy

    Case # 16-CV-191-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2019)

    A litigant seeking reconsideration under Rule 54(b) must set forth "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Richard v. Dignean, 126 F. Supp. 3d 334, 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also Micolo v. Fuller, No. 6:15-CV-06374 EAW, 2017 WL 2297026, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) ("To merit reconsideration under Rule 54(b), a party must show 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'") (quoting Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). Further, "[f]or new evidence to justify reconsideration, the evidence must be of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome of the prior ruling."