Favourite v. 55 Halley Street, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:16-cv-04285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Favourite v. 55 Halley Street, Inc., Judge Roman denied Rayantha Favourite’s request to set aside the earlier summary-judgment decision.
Rayantha Favourite’s attempt to reopen the May 2019 summary-judgment decision was denied; the defendants retained the benefit of that decision.
What happened
In Favourite v. 55 Halley Street, Inc., Rayantha Favourite asked the court to undo its May 2019 decision granting summary judgment to the defendants. That decision dismissed her discrimination claims with prejudice and her remaining state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Favourite argued that the defendants improperly left corrections to George Butcher’s deposition out of their summary-judgment papers. She sought relief under two parts of Rule 60, which allows a court to provide extraordinary relief from a final decision for reasons such as fraud or other exceptional circumstances.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied both requests. He found that Favourite’s counsel knew about the corrections and had an opportunity to raise the issue, that the defendants’ omission did not establish fraud, and that the corrections did not materially change the earlier review of the evidence.
The detailed version
- Favourite v. 55 Halley Street, Inc. · No. 7:16-cv-04285
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background
Rayantha Favourite sued 55 Halley Street, Inc., its Board of Directors, Diane Currenti, and Doris Basilone. She asserted 15 causes of action, including six federal discrimination claims arising from events concerning her residency at 55 Halley Street in Yonkers, New York.
In a May 23, 2019 Opinion and Order, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the court determines that the record does not require a trial on the claims. The court dismissed Favourite’s federal and state discrimination claims with prejudice and dismissed her remaining state-law claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
Favourite then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (6) to set aside the May 2019 decision. Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a final decision for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for another reason that justifies it, but only in extraordinary circumstances.
Favourite’s Arguments
Favourite argued under Rule 60(b)(3) that the defendants intentionally failed to attach corrections to non-party George Butcher’s deposition testimony when seeking summary judgment. She argued under Rule 60(b)(6) that considering those corrections required a different view of the evidence previously submitted.
The opinion states that the defendants received signed and notarized copies of the corrections on September 8, 2017. It also states that Favourite’s counsel knew about the corrections before the defendants filed their summary-judgment motion and was copied on a September 13, 2017 letter in which the defendants objected to the corrections, including on the ground that they did not comply with Rule 30(e)(1)(B). Neither Favourite nor her counsel raised the issue with the court before summary-judgment briefing closed.
Court’s Analysis
For the Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the court explained that Favourite had to show by clear and convincing evidence that misconduct prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case. The court found that Favourite’s counsel knew about the corrections and had an opportunity to address them before briefing ended. The court also concluded that the defendants’ failure to include corrections to which they objected was not the type of misconduct covered by Rule 60(b)(3). The court therefore denied the Rule 60(b)(3) motion.
For the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the court found that Favourite’s argument appeared to repeat her Rule 60(b)(3) challenge and attempted to relitigate the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court stated that Rule 60(b)(6) does not cover such relitigation. In addition, even if it considered the corrections, the court found that they did not undermine its earlier review of the record or legal analysis. Although the corrections were substantial, the particular portions identified by Favourite did not appear to meaningfully change the overall substance of Butcher’s testimony previously considered by the court.
Disposition
The court denied Favourite’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion and denied her Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The court’s conclusion also states that Favourite’s motion was denied, and it directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 52.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.