The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-06630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio, Judge Failla denied Amelio’s request to reconsider dismissal after finding his removal was more than ten years late.
Alfonso Amelio’s request to reopen or change the Court’s earlier dismissal was denied. The Bank of New York Mellon’s earlier dismissal ruling remained in place.
What happened
Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio began when Alfonso Amelio removed a New York state-court case to federal court. The Bank of New York Mellon later asked the federal court to dismiss the case.
The court had already granted the Bank’s dismissal motion in full, concluding that the deadline for Amelio to move the case to federal court had expired more than ten years earlier. Amelio then asked the court to reconsider that decision.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the reconsideration request. She found that Amelio had not identified overlooked facts or controlling legal decisions that would have changed the earlier dismissal.
The detailed version
- The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio · No. 1:24-cv-06630
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 22, 2025
Background
Alfonso Amelio removed the case from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, on August 26, 2024. After allowing supplemental briefing, the Court accepted The Bank of New York Mellon’s letter as a motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2025, the Court granted that motion in its entirety, explaining that the time for Amelio to remove the case to federal court had expired more than ten years earlier under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Reconsideration request
Amelio later requested reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The Court explained that reconsideration requires a showing such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Local Civil Rule 6.3 also requires the moving party to identify factual matters or controlling precedent that the Court overlooked and that would have changed its decision.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that Amelio had not identified any overlooked factual matters or controlling precedent that would have changed the Court’s earlier decision. The Court therefore DENIES the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail a copy of the Order to Amelio at his address of record.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- CROSS FIRE & SECURITY CO., INC. and NORTH AMERICAN FIRE HOLDINGS, LLC, doing…Jul 2026
- Molesphiniv. Anthony Giordano
- Dennis Batista Nunez v. Kenneth W. Rantz, Jr., doing business as K W Rantz…Oct 2025
- Acostav. Steven M
- Fort Lee Office LLC and Meyer Chetrit v. Computershare Trust Company, National…Sep 2025
- O'ReillySep 2025