Opinion
08 Civ. 10462 (BSJ) (KNF).
July 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Through a writing, dated July 20, 2009, the defendants requested, among other things, that the Court issue an order directing the plaintiff to execute a "general [New York Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL")] § 160.50 release [] pertaining to any and all arrest records . . . regardless of disposition." CPL § 160.50 directs the clerk of court, except in certain circumstances not pertinent here, to seal the record of a criminal action or proceeding that is terminated in favor of the accused. Thus, only a favorable disposition, from the perspective of a criminally accused person, implicates CPL § 160.50's sealing mechanism. The plaintiff opposed the application, through a writing dated July 21, 2009.
The request for the order referenced above was denied by the Court via a memorandum endorsement dated July 22, 2009. That same date, the defendants submitted a letter to the Court requesting that it reconsider the determination made and the defendants' request for an order directing the plaintiff to execute a general CPL § 160.50 release. In that writing, the defendants made citation to case law, which they had not previously brought to the Court's attention, and urged the Court to issue an order granting them access to a universe of arrest records that differed from the universe of arrest records described in the defendants' original application to the Court.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court authorizes a party to apply to the court for reconsideration of an order that resolved a motion. The Rule is applied strictly and construed narrowly, in order to "`avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [c]ourt.'" Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, at *1 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001]). A motion for reconsideration is not a means by which a party may "reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved."Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 518 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 [S.D.N.Y. 1996]). Nor is such a motion a vehicle through which a party may "advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court." Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 437, 438-39 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]).
"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-matters, that is, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transport, Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Here, the defendants have asked the Court to reconsider its decision on their application for an order respecting access to arrest records pertinent to the plaintiff. In doing so, the defendants have presented and asked the Court to consider case law to which no citation was made at the time of the initial application for the order. Moreover, the defendants have ignored the fact that their initial application, for an order directing the plaintiff to execute a general CPL § 160.50 release permitting the defendants access to "any and all arrest records . . . regardless of disposition," is broader than the request made through the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the motion for reconsideration seeks an order different in scope from the order originally sought by the defendants. These factors militate against granting the application for reconsideration.
In the circumstance of the instant case, where the defendants seek, through a motion for reconsideration, an order different in scope from the order they originally sought from the Court and have presented case law to the Court for its consideration, which, heretofore, they had not presented to the Court, no basis exists for granting the defendants' application for reconsideration; it is, therefore, denied.
SO ORDERED: