Brennan v. Hoehmann
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-11115
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brennan v. Hoehmann, Judge Briccetti denied reconsideration of an earlier dismissal and denied Brennan’s request to appeal without paying fees.
Matthew I. Brennan’s request to change the earlier dismissal was denied, and his request to appeal without paying court fees was also denied. The earlier dismissal was left undisturbed.
What happened
In Brennan v. Hoehmann, Matthew I. Brennan sent the court a letter responding to its earlier decision granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court treated the letter as a request to reconsider that decision.
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only when there is a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious unfairness. It found that Brennan had not shown that the court overlooked anything important or that its earlier decision was materially wrong.
Judge Briccetti denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also denied Brennan’s request to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brennan v. Hoehmann · No. 7:19-cv-11115
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
The court had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in an Opinion and Order dated July 27, 2020. Matthew I. Brennan later submitted a letter dated August 10, 2020, described as being “in response” to that decision. The court treated the letter as a motion for reconsideration, meaning a request to change an earlier ruling.
The defendants named in the caption were the Town of Clarkstown; Clarkstown Supervisor George Hoehmann; Clarkstown Councilman Frank Borelli; Clarkstown Building Code Task Force Attorney Leslie Kahn; Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Kevin Hobbs; and Clarkstown Code Enforcement Officer Raymond L. Francis.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration requires the moving party to show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The motion cannot be used to present new facts, issues, or arguments that were not previously presented, and disagreement with the court’s decision alone is not enough.
Court’s ruling
After reviewing the July 27 decision and Brennan’s motion, the court concluded that it had not overlooked facts or precedent that could have changed its earlier conclusions. The court also found that the motion did not show the earlier decision was materially wrong. It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
The court further certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It denied Brennan permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court stated that it would mail Brennan a copy of the order.
The opinion does not describe the claims or explain the reasoning behind the July 27 dismissal, so this order does not independently resolve those underlying issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.