Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 22, 2025

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:24-cv-06630
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

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.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio · No. 1:24-cv-06630
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.