Colon v. City Of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:16-cv-04540
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Colon v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Broderick denied Colon’s motion to reconsider earlier evidence rulings about funding, inspections, and testimony.
Sibyl Colon and the defendants—the New York City Housing Authority, Brian Clarke, and Michael Kelly—were affected by the court’s refusal to change the earlier evidence rulings.
What happened
In Sibyl Colon v. New York City Housing Authority, Brian Clarke, and Michael Kelly, Colon asked the court to reconsider an October 5, 2023 order issued before trial. That order declined to recognize a New York City Housing Authority funding statistic as an established fact and excluded evidence about lead-paint inspections and a legal department’s advice concerning a proposed employee transfer.
Colon argued that the funding statistic was relevant to her retaliation claims and that the other evidence should be allowed. The court said she repeated arguments it had already rejected and identified no change in the law, new evidence, clear error, or serious unfairness requiring reconsideration. The court also said the requests concerning the inspections and legal department testimony were filed late, although it addressed their substance as well.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion for reconsideration. He concluded that the funding statistic was not relevant or necessary to Colon’s retaliation claims, that the lead-inspection evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and that the testimony about the legal department was protected, insufficiently useful, and likely to create an irrelevant trial within the trial.
The detailed version
- Colon v. City Of New York · No. 1:16-cv-04540
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Before a trial that was scheduled for October 17, 2023, the parties filed motions asking the court to decide what evidence could be used at trial. Colon asked the court to recognize as an established fact the percentage of the New York City Housing Authority’s budget that came from city funds. The defendants asked the court to exclude evidence about the Authority’s alleged failure to conduct lead-paint inspections and evidence concerning a statement by Brian Clarke that the Law Department had recommended not transferring Allison Williams.
In an October 5, 2023 order, the court denied Colon’s request concerning the funding statistic and granted the defendants’ request to exclude both categories of evidence. The trial was later adjourned after defense counsel tested positive for COVID-19. Colon then filed this motion asking the court to reconsider the October order.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and Local Civil Rule 6.3 is available only in limited circumstances. A party generally must identify a controlling legal decision or important information that the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. Reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or present the case under a new theory.
Funding statistic
Colon argued that the funding statistic was relevant to show that Melissa Mark-Viverito, then the City Council Speaker, had influence over the Housing Authority and that the Authority wanted to satisfy her. The court rejected the argument again. It distinguished the Second Circuit decision Colon relied on because that decision involved different claims and different elements of proof.
The court stated that Colon’s retaliation claims depended on whether she had a good-faith belief that the directive to transfer Williams was racially discriminatory and what action she took in response. In the court’s view, the Housing Authority’s state of mind and the alleged financial pressure from the city did not make those facts more or less likely. The court found that Colon offered no new law or facts and no clear error or serious unfairness justifying reconsideration.
Lead-paint inspections and legal department testimony
The court also addressed Colon’s requests concerning the other two categories of evidence. It noted that Colon filed the motion 48 days after the October 5 order, beyond the 14-day period in Local Rule 6.3 and the 28-day period in Rule 59(e). The court said it could deny those portions as untimely because Colon had received permission to seek reconsideration only of the funding-statistic ruling. It nevertheless considered the arguments on their merits.
Regarding the lead-paint inspections, the court repeated its earlier conclusion that alleged failures to conduct inspections were not relevant to Colon’s claims and would unfairly prejudice the defendants. Colon’s renewed arguments and additional case citations did not show clear error or serious unfairness.
Regarding Clarke’s testimony, the court had previously found that the statement about the Law Department’s recommendation did not waive attorney-client protection. It further found that the statement had limited or no useful value and would be unfairly prejudicial. The court rejected Colon’s renewed arguments that the defendants had waived that protection and that the statement was necessary to prove that the employment practice she opposed was unlawful. The court said Colon’s claims did not require her to prove that the underlying practice was unlawful, and allowing the testimony would require a broader inquiry into the legal advice and create an irrelevant trial within the trial.
Disposition
The court denied Colon’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Document 314.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.