Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180730_0001760.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:59:24+00:00

Document:
BARBARA UNDERWOOD, Attorney General for the State of New York, and TIMOTHY MCKOY Administrator of Franklin Correctional Center, North Carolina, Respondents.
For the following reasons, Respondent's motion is DENIED.
After careful review of the Petition, Judge McCarthy's Report, and Petitioner's objections, this Court issued an Opinion and Order on September 5, 2017, partially adopting Judge McCarthy's Report and denying all but one of Petitioner's claims. (ECF No. 45.) The Court agreed with Petitioner, however, that the trial court failed to conduct the requisite analysis under the third step of Batson and assess the credibility of the prosecution's explanation for peremptorily striking a juror. The Court held resolution of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in abeyance pending a reconstruction hearing to address Petitioner's remaining Batson claim.
The New York State Respondent subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Petitioner's remaining Batson claim is unexhausted and procedurally barred, as it was not raised in Petitioner's direct appeal to the Appellate Division. (See Resp.'s Mot. at 1.) The Court considers Respondent's argument in turn.
Motions for reconsideration are typically governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). As a threshold matter, however, Rule 60(b) applies only to “final" judgments. In re Shengdatech, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 11-CV-1918 (LGS), 2015 WL 3422096, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “The prevailing rule in this Circuit and elsewhere is that an order is final for purposes of Rule 60(b) when it is appealable.” In re Shengdatech, 2015 WL 3422096, at *3 (collecting cases). For the purposes of appealability, “[a] final judgment or order is one that conclusively determines all pending claims of all the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its decision.” Petrello v. White, 533 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2008). Because the Court's September 5, 2017 Opinion did not dispose of all pending claims, it was not a final judgment or order. Accordingly, Rule 60(b) is inapplicable here. See In re Shengdatech, 2015 WL 3422096, at *4.
Respondent's motion must, therefore, be construed as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 is strict.” Targum v. Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP, No. 12-CV-6909 (SAS), 2013 WL 6188339, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2013). “[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Mahadeo v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 514 Fed.Appx. 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). Moreover, a Rule 6.3 motion “cannot assert new arguments or claims which were not before the court in the original motion.” McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC v. Mathrani, 293 F.Supp.3d 394, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Respondent's motion for reconsideration is untimely. “Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, ‘a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court's determination of the original motion . . . .'” McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 13-CV-3786, 2015 WL 4240736, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2015) (quoting Local Civil Rule 6.3)). Here, the Court issued its initial decision on September 5, 2017. (See ECF No. 45.) Respondent did not file the present motion, however, until September 26, 2017-a full 21 days after the Court rendered its opinion. (See ECF No. 48.) “As numerous cases from this Circuit have held, the untimeliness of a motion for reconsideration is reason enough to deny the motion.” McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 293 F.Supp.3d at 397 (citing Cyrus v. City of N.Y., 2010 WL 148078, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2010) (collecting cases)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.