Rather, such motions are to be "narrowly construed in order to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters." Tulczynska v. Queens Hosp. Ctr., No. 17-CV-1669, 2020 WL 2836759, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2020) (emphasis added); see also Perros v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 15-CV-5598, 2019 WL 1441131, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019) ("A party seeking reconsideration may . . . no[t] advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court."). Plaintiff's request for reconsideration to amend his Complaint is no more than an attempt to "plug the gap" or seek the proverbial second bite of the apple.