Zappin v. Supple
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-05602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zappin v. Supple, Judge Schofield denied Zappin’s reconsideration motion because it repeated rejected arguments and added new allegations.
Anthony Zappin’s request for reconsideration was denied, and the court directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case; the opinion also addresses the defendants’ position in the underlying legal-malpractice dispute.
What happened
In Zappin v. Supple, Anthony Zappin asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying permission to file a second amended complaint. The opinion states that reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent injustice.
The court said Zappin repeated arguments it had already rejected and raised new theories and allegations. These included a new claim that his former lawyer committed malpractice and that fairness would have changed the result of a motion to renew. The court also rejected his arguments about misconduct accusations and who should decide whether the alleged malpractice caused his loss.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- Zappin v. Supple · No. 1:20-cv-05602
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 2, 2021
Background
Anthony Zappin moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 7, 2021, order denying his motion for permission to file a second amended complaint. The earlier order is not reproduced in this opinion, which states that familiarity with it is assumed.
Standard for Reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It may be granted when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice that needs correction. The court emphasized that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain a new hearing on the merits, or add facts, issues, or arguments that were not previously presented.
Court’s Analysis
The opinion states that the moving party did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or injustice. Instead, the court found that the motion repeated arguments previously briefed and rejected and presented new theories and allegations.
Regarding the argument about renewing an earlier matter, Zappin raised for the first time the allegation that his prior lawyer had committed malpractice. He argued that fairness would have led the First Department to grant a motion to renew if the defendants had filed one. The court noted that the proposed second amended complaint did not allege malpractice by the prior lawyer, and that Zappin had not previously argued that the lawyer’s conduct constituted malpractice or that a fairness-based standard applied. The court declined to consider those new allegations and arguments.
The court also found no basis for reconsideration in Zappin’s argument that the Grievance Committee had introduced uncharged misconduct allegations. According to the opinion, he repeated portions of the proposed complaint and asserted that the accusations were unlawful without identifying overlooked facts or law. Finally, the court rejected his argument that it had improperly taken the issue of causation away from a jury, explaining that causation in a legal-malpractice case may be decided on a motion to dismiss in appropriate circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Zappin’s motion for reconsideration be DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 65 and to close the case. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.