Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Philip Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Judge Abrams denied reconsideration because no new evidence or clear error was shown.
Philip Columbo’s request to revisit the earlier partial dismissal was rejected; the order also left the earlier ruling and the amended-pleading process in place.
What happened
In Philip Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, the court considered Columbo’s request to reconsider an earlier order that dismissed most of his claims while allowing a conversion claim to continue against certain defendants. The court had given him permission to amend his complaint.
Columbo argued that new evidence and manifest injustice justified reconsideration. The court found that he had presented new allegations, not newly discovered evidence, and that reconsideration was not the proper place to add allegations that could be included in an amended complaint. The court also rejected his argument that the earlier decision contained clear error.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Columbo’s motion for reconsideration in its entirety and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00775
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 28, 2024
Background
In an earlier order, the court granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss most of Philip Columbo’s claims, except for his conversion claim against Sheila Chess, Michael Pilevsky, and the Hotel. The court also granted Columbo leave to amend his complaint. Columbo filed an amended complaint and then moved for reconsideration of the earlier dismissal order.
Arguments and Analysis
Under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), reconsideration is available only when there has been a change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Columbo argued that reconsideration was warranted because he had new evidence and because the earlier order caused manifest injustice. He did not argue that controlling law had changed.
The court rejected the new-evidence argument because Columbo identified new allegations rather than evidence that was newly discovered or could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence. The court explained that a reconsideration motion is not the proper vehicle for adding allegations and noted that Columbo could present additional allegations in an amended complaint. Because he had been given leave to amend and had filed a Second Amended Complaint, the court also found no manifest injustice.
The court separately rejected Columbo’s claim that it had committed clear error. It stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Disposition
The court denied Columbo’s motion for reconsideration in its entirety. Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at ECF No. 94. This order addressed reconsideration of the earlier ruling; it did not itself decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.