East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York

S.D. New York

East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York

141 F.R.D. 245, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760, 1992 WL 52647

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 11, 1992

DocketNo. 90 Civ. 2108 (RWS)

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 141 F.R.D. 245 (East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760, 1992 WL 52647 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

The Defendants have moved for leave to reargue the Court’s prior opinion in this matter dated January 2, 1992, 781 F.Supp. 999 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (the “Opinion”), pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3(j) of the Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York. For the reason set forth below, the motion is denied.

To be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Defendants must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Association, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

, The Defendants reassert here that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata and that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish municipal liability. These arguments were considered by the Court and discussed in the Opinion, 781 F.Supp. at 1005-1006, 1010-1011. The Defendants therefore are not entitled to reargument.

Moreover, the Defendants continued res judicata argument ignores the special nature of and the limited relief available in the prior proceedings. As stated by the Second Circuit in Antonsen v. Ward, 943 F.2d 198 (2d Cir.1991), under New [246]*246York’s transactional approach, “only if a claim could have been litigated in a prior proceeding will it later be precluded on grounds of res judicata. Where ‘formal barriers’ to asserting a claim existed in the first forum it would be 'unfair to preclude the plaintiff from a second action in which he can present those phases of the claim which he was disabled from presenting in the first.’ ” Id. at 201 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(l)(c) comment c (1982)). It is not the relief sought, but the relief available that is controlling. See id. at 202-04; cf. Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 384-85 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1894, 95 L.Ed.2d 501 (1987). For at least this reason, the cases cited by the Defendants are inapposite.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion for leave to reargue is denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

The Defendants have moved for leave to reargue the Court’s prior opinion in this matter dated January 2, 1992, 781 F.Supp. 999 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (the “Opinion”), pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3(j) of the Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York. For the reason set forth below, the motion is denied.

To be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Defendants must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Association, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

, The Defendants reassert here that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata and that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish municipal liability. These arguments were considered by the Court and discussed in the Opinion, 781 F.Supp. at 1005-1006, 1010-1011. The Defendants therefore are not entitled to reargument.

Moreover, the Defendants continued res judicata argument ignores the special nature of and the limited relief available in the prior proceedings. As stated by the Second Circuit in Antonsen v. Ward, 943 F.2d 198 (2d Cir.1991), under New [246]*246York’s transactional approach, “only if a claim could have been litigated in a prior proceeding will it later be precluded on grounds of res judicata. Where ‘formal barriers’ to asserting a claim existed in the first forum it would be 'unfair to preclude the plaintiff from a second action in which he can present those phases of the claim which he was disabled from presenting in the first.’ ” Id. at 201 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(l)(c) comment c (1982)). It is not the relief sought, but the relief available that is controlling. See id. at 202-04; cf. Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 384-85 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1894, 95 L.Ed.2d 501 (1987). For at least this reason, the cases cited by the Defendants are inapposite.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion for leave to reargue is denied.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F.R.D. 245, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760, 1992 WL 52647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-coast-novelty-co-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack