Case Name: DOW CORNING LIMITED, a corporation of the United Kingdom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEMICAL DESIGN, INC., Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Insurance Company, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Certified Fabrications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-09
Citations: 23 F. App'x 90
Docket Number: No. 01-7237
Parties: DOW CORNING LIMITED, a corporation of the United Kingdom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEMICAL DESIGN, INC., Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Insurance Company, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Certified Fabrications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
DOW CORNING LIMITED, a corporation of the United Kingdom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEMICAL DESIGN, INC., Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Insurance Company, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Certified Fabrications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7237.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2002.
Richard J. Shackleton, Shackleton, Hazeltine & Bishop, Ship Bottom, NJ, appearing for Appellant.
Robert A. Biltekoff, Lipman & Biltekoff, Williamsville, NY, appearing for Appellee Chemical Design, Inc..
Joseph G. Finnerty III, Piper Marbury Rudniek & Wolfe, N.Y., NY, appearing for Appellee Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co.
John Delli Venneri, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, N.Y., NY, appearing for Appellee The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Peter A. Vinolus, Lackawanna, NY, appearing for Appellee Certified Fabrications, Inc..
Present MESKILL, KEARSE and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Skretny's Decision and Order dated October 15, 1999. Although plaintiff asserts on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing its complaint as untimely because, it argues, the contract in question is governed by English law, plaintiff failed to make this argument in opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, advancing it only in a motion for reconsideration after summary judgment had been granted. This Court generally will not consider an argument that was not timely made in the district court, see, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir.1994), and the record does not persuade us that the interests of justice require a departure from that general practice in this case.
We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.