Alterescu v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

Felicia A. Alterescu asked the court to reconsider its November 29, 2022 order. That earlier order had denied her request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and denied her request to proceed without paying fees on appeal. Alterescu’s letter said that her former attorney, Christopher Mason, and a freelance paralegal, Betsy Combier, failed to notify her promptly because an incorrect email address was used. She argued that these circumstances amounted to excusable neglect, meaning a legally sufficient reason for missing a deadline.

Reconsideration standard

The court explained that motions to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and motions for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 are governed by the same standard. Reconsideration is generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, when there is new evidence or an intervening change in controlling law, or when reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice.

Court’s reasoning

The court first ruled that Alterescu’s motion was untimely under either rule. The court entered the earlier order on November 29, 2022 and mailed it the next day. Twenty-eight days after mailing was December 28, 2022, while Alterescu’s letter was dated January 10, 2023 and postmarked January 19, 2023.

The court also ruled that the motion would fail even if it had been timely. The information Alterescu presented about the incorrect email address and the alleged statements by Mason and Combier had not been presented when the court decided the earlier motion. The court stated that a party generally cannot use reconsideration to offer new facts that could have been presented on the original motion. The court further concluded that, even considering the new information, it did not establish excusable neglect under the circumstances described in the earlier order.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Alterescu’s motion for reconsideration. The court also determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 45 and mail Alterescu a copy of the order.