[brief] However, “[a] litigant should not seek reconsideration merely because of dissatisfaction with a decision of the [c]ourt. ”  Asterbadi at 310 (quoting D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)) (emphasis added); see also Guido at 87-88.  The Asterbadi Court stated that:  Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases . . . that fall within that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.  Asterbati at 310 (emphasis added).  Plaintiff, in his Motion papers, proffered none of the required “palpably incorrect or irrational” basis/es or evidentiary oversights necessary to convince the Court Below of a need to reconsider the prior determination.  Plaintiff simply disagreed with the Court Below and sought another opportunity to reassert his prior “evidence” and arguments.  In fact, Plaintiff even admits that the basis for his entire Complaint is the Application filed on February 15, 2019.  (See Pa221 (“It is true that Plaintiff’s relies on the Application in support of his Complaint[.]”); see also Pb22).  Therefore, Plaintiff himself has admitted to the basis upon which the Court Below made its determination, i.e., the denial of the 2019 application was the date of accrual and the starting point for the running of the applicable Statute of Limitations.  (See 1T23:9-25 and 1T24:1-13).  Thus, the Court Below need not consider any other irrelevant evidence and no new evidence was provided.  Plaintiff did not present one single iota of new or overlooked evidence to the Court Below because there is no such evidence.  Plaintiff further did not assert that the Court Below was incorrect in its determination that (or that same was irrationally based upon) the simple fact that the applicable Statutes of Limitations had run and Plaintiff’s Complaint was time barred.  Instead, Plaintiff sought an additional bite at the apple and reasserted the exact same legal arguments and evidence already presented to the Court Below in opposition to the Borough’s Motion to Dismiss.  Therefore, having reviewed the submissions, the Court Below tersely held that “[t]he Court does find that it did not base its October 20th decision upon an incorrect basis and that the Court did not fail to consider the significance of probative evidence.  It stands by its decision. ” (See 2T22:10-14).  In fact, Plaintiff was so dissatisfied with the Court Below’s correct decision that Plaintiff’s Complaint was time barred, Plaintiff sought to have [...] recuse himself in addition to seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated October 20, 2023.  (See infra Point IV).  Plaintiff then, as he is doing now, sought to reargue his entire case by presenting the exact same (irrelevant) evidence to the Court, while refusing to even address the basis for the Borough’s Motion, i.e., the simple fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed years beyond the applicable Statutes of Limitations.  Accordingly, the decision of the Court Below regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is palpably correct; rests on a rational basis; and the Court Below considered and appreciated the significance of probative, competent evidence prior to rendering a decision to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.  Therefore, the Court Below's determination regarding denial of reconsideration should be AFFIRMED.