Reifler v. Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, L.L.

-1-
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
)
In re: 	) 	Chapter 7
)
PALI HOLDINGS, INC., 	) 	Case No. 10-11727 (REG)
)
Debtor. 	)
__________________________________________)
)
BRADLEY REIFLER, 	)
) 	Adversary Proceeding
Plaintiff, 	) 	No. 10-03348 (REG)
)
against 	)
)
GLASER, WEIL, FINKS, JACOBS, 	)
HOWARD & SHAPIRO 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
__________________________________________)
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR
REARGUMENT
ROBERT E. GERBER
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Plaintiff Bradley Reifler moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9023 and Rule
9023–1 of the Local Rules of this Court, for “reargument and reconsideration” with
respect to this Court’s order, entered on March 18, 2008, that granted the motion of
defendant Glaser, Weil, Finks, Jacobs, Howard and Shapiro to stay this adversary
proceeding. The motion is denied.
Local Rule 9023–1 provides, in relevant part:
A motion for reargument ... shall set forth concisely
the matters or controlling decisions which counsel
believes the Court has not considered.
10-03348-reg Doc 31 Filed 04/25/11 Entered 04/25/11 10:56:25 Main Document
Pg 1 of 3

-2-
To be entitled to reargument, the moving party “must demonstrate that the court
overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters ‘that might materially have influenced
its earlier decision.’” In re Stylesite Marketing, Inc., 2001 WL 13212, *1
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2001) (Bernstein, C.J.) (quoting Anglo–American Ins. Group, P.L.C. v.
Calfed, Inc., 940 F.Supp. 554, 557 (S.D.N.Y.1996)).1 See also In re Adelphia Business
Solutions, Inc., 2002 WL 31557665, *1 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002) (denying motion for
reargument, as “the Reargument Motion fails to set forth any such facts or other matters,
or controlling decisions, of the type that Federal Rules 59 and 60, and Local Rule 9023–
1, require”). Likewise, as Judge Garrity of this Court held in In re Jamesway Corp.,
203 B.R. 543 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996):
The only proper ground on which a party may move
to reargue an unambiguous order is that the court
overlooked ‘matters or controlling decisions’ which,
had they been considered, might reasonably have
altered the result reached by the court.
Id. at 546 (citation omitted). Judge Garrity continued that:
This rule is calculated to “ensure the finality of
decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing
party examining a decision and then plugging the
gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.”
Id. (quoting Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F.Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y.1988).
Here, while invoking Bankruptcy Rule 9023 and Local Rule 9023–1, Reifler
ignores the requirements of those rules. In essence he simply seeks to repeat the
arguments the Court previously considered and rejected. The request for a “summary
1 	Chief Judge Bernstein further noted:
The rule permitting reargument must be narrowly construed to
avoid repetitive arguments on issues that the court has already
fully considered. Further, the parties cannot advance new facts
or arguments, and may not submit affidavits or new material.
Id. (citation omitted)
10-03348-reg Doc 31 Filed 04/25/11 Entered 04/25/11 10:56:25 Main Document
Pg 2 of 3

-3-
trial” on contentions as to which the Court was already fully aware is merely a variant of
arguments Reifler already made. Likewise, he has failed to identify any factual matter or
controlling decisions that the Court overlooked. His motion amounts in substance to an
effort to relitigate the matter, and to request that the Court revisit issues which the Court
believes that it fully considered. Motions of this character are not appropriate to obtain a
“second bite at the apple.”
The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York 	s/Robert E. Gerber
April 25, 2011 	United States Bankruptcy Judge
10-03348-reg Doc 31 Filed 04/25/11 Entered 04/25/11 10:56:25 Main Document
Pg 3 of 3