Kent-Friedman v. The State Of New York
- Victor Marrero
- 1:18-cv-04422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alison Kent-Friedman v. New York State Insurance Fund, Judge Marrero denied NYSIF’s motion to reconsider an earlier partial summary-judgment ruling.
NYSIF’s request to reconsider the earlier partial summary-judgment ruling was denied. The earlier ruling was left unchanged, including its partial denial of summary judgment.
What happened
Alison Kent-Friedman sued the New York State Insurance Fund and individual defendants in an employment discrimination case. Before this order, the court had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The New York State Insurance Fund asked the court to reconsider the portion of that earlier ruling that denied summary judgment, and it cited a recent Second Circuit decision as additional support. Kent-Friedman opposed the request.
Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the Fund had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, and that the cited decision did not justify reconsideration. The court denied the motion and directed the clerk to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Kent-Friedman v. The State Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04422
- Victor Marrero
- Nov. 3, 2023
Background
Alison Kent-Friedman brought an employment discrimination action against the New York State Insurance Fund (NYSIF) and individual defendants. In a decision filed on September 27, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, a motion asking the court to rule without a trial because there was no genuine dispute requiring a jury’s decision.
NYSIF then moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration or reargument of the part of the summary-judgment decision that denied its motion. NYSIF also submitted supplemental authority citing the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Eisenhauer v. Culinary Institute of America. Kent-Friedman filed responses, and NYSIF filed a reply.
Legal standard
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. The party seeking it must show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were already before it and that could have materially affected the earlier decision. A party may not simply repeat arguments that were already presented and rejected or raise new facts, issues, or arguments.
Ruling
The court found that NYSIF had not shown that it overlooked controlling decisions or material facts. The court also concluded that Eisenhauer did not warrant reconsideration of the earlier decision. The court explained that it had understood that statements allegedly made by then-New York Inspector General Catherine Leahy Scott to defendant Eric Madoff could be admitted at trial to show their effect on Madoff, but not for the truth of the statements. The court had nevertheless determined that a reasonable jury could consider the evidence as a whole and infer that the employment decision was more likely than not based in whole or in part on discrimination.
Judge Victor Marrero therefore denied NYSIF’s motion for reconsideration or reargument. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 185.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.