Delo v. Fordham University

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X BENJAMIN J. DELO, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6025 (JGLC) (VF) -against- ORDER FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order at ECF No. 40, which denied Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s counsel to disclose its financial relationship with Defendant (ECF No. 37) and Plaintiff’s request to disqualify Defendant’s counsel (ECF No. 38). ECF No. 46. Under this District’s Local Rules, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within “fourteen days after the entry of the Court’s determination of the original motion.” Loc. Civ. R. 6.3; Floyd v. City of New York, 813 F. Supp. 2d 457, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (explaining that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days, unless the court states otherwise). The Order for which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration was entered on June 3, 2025, and the motion for reconsideration was not filed until 72 days later, on August 13, 2025. ECF Nos. 40, 46. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore denied as untimely. See, e.g., Malik v. Mackey, No. 03-CV-580 (TPG), 2009 WL 255861, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2009) (denying pro se plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as untimely); see also United States v. Okparaeke, No. 17-CR-225 (NSR), 2019 WL 4233427, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2019) (noting that “although [the court] is mindful of the latitude it should afford pro se [litigants], the Court denies [the] motion for reconsideration as untimely”). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 46. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York August 26, 2025 \\ M \\ ny \ X VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge