Bellino v. Tallarico ( 2024 )

| [USOC SDN □ □ |PDOCUMENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 ELECTRONIGALAS □□□□□ 3 1 Ub □□ aaiBauepts ing □□□ □□ □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK aos Se ee □ JEANNE BELLINO, tou DATE BLED. □□ Plaintiff, ABASIC Tr Pra □□ he □□□ □□ -against- 24-cv-0712 (LAK) STEVEN VICTOR TALLARICO a/k/a Steven Tyler, Defendant ee ee ee ee Re eB eR ee RR RH HK ORDER LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss.’ “[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.’ But “[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is... . not to seek a different outcome on the basis of an argument that was not made in the first place.’ This is precisely what plaintiff attempts to do in her memorandum in support of her motion, Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff remains free to file a timely motion for leave to amend the complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2024 ; Lewis'Al. Kaptan’ United States District Judge Dket 12. Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 118 1.94 (2d Cir. 2021) (queting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). See Shapira v. Charles Schwab & Co., 02-cv-0425 (LAK), 2002 WL 31307962, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2002).