Levitant v. Workers Compensation Board of the State of New York

Background

Zinoviy Levitant brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Workers’ Compensation Board of the State of New York and its commissioners, whom the opinion calls the State Defendants, as well as Zachary Carter and the City of New York, whom the opinion calls the City Defendants. The dispute concerned Levitant’s eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. The opinion states that Levitant was represented by counsel.

In an earlier March 2018 order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims and denied Levitant’s request to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint because further amendment would be futile. The earlier order dismissed claims in part because Levitant had not properly served the defendants with the original complaint and found that the commissioners were protected by absolute judicial immunity.

Motion and Legal Standard

Levitant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which governs requests to alter or amend a judgment. The court explained that this remedy is limited to situations involving an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new legal theories, or obtain a second hearing merely because a party disagrees with the result.

The court determined that the motion was timely because judgment was entered on March 9, 2018, and Levitant filed the motion on April 6, 2018—28 days later. The court therefore considered the motion on the merits of the reconsideration request.

Discussion

Service. Levitant argued that the court should reconsider its dismissal because good cause existed for his failure to properly serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court declined to consider this argument as a basis for reconsideration because Levitant was raising the legal theory for the first time in the reconsideration motion. The court stated that, regardless of whether good cause existed for the failure to serve, Levitant had not shown good cause for failing to raise the argument earlier.

Commissioners’ immunity. The earlier order held that the state defendants, including the commissioners sued individually, had absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts. The court explained that this immunity can be overcome only when the alleged actions were nonjudicial or were taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Levitant argued that the commissioners’ actions, particularly the alleged retaliation, fell outside their official capacities. The court rejected the argument both because it could have been raised earlier and because it lacked merit. It found that denying Levitant’s claims, denying his request to change venue, and requiring him to seek work were judicial in nature. The court therefore denied reconsideration of its immunity ruling.

Injunctive relief. Levitant also argued that the court had wrongly denied injunctive relief because an appeal under Section 23 of New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law would not address his alleged loss of authorized treatment. The court noted that Levitant had already raised this argument in opposing dismissal and that the court had considered and rejected it. Because reconsideration is not a substitute for an appeal or a vehicle for repeating previously rejected arguments, the court found no basis to reconsider its prior ruling.

Disposition

The court denied Levitant’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not alter the description of the earlier order: that order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims and denied Levitant leave to further amend the complaint.