BAM Brokerage Corp. v. State of NY, 88 Civ. 5714 (RWS).
Decision Date | 16 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88 Civ. 5714 (RWS).,88 Civ. 5714 (RWS). |
Citation | 724 F. Supp. 146 |
Parties | B.A.M. BROKERAGE CORP., et al., Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs B.A.M. Brokerage Corporation and some one hundred other individuals and corporations licensed to sell insurance in New York (the "Brokers") have moved pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and Rules 59 and 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., for an order granting reargument of the court's August 4, 1989 opinion, 718 F.Supp. 1195, (the "Opinion") and, upon reargument, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Familiarity with the Opinion is assumed.
A court should grant a motion to reargue under Local Rule 3(j) only if the moving party presents matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked that might materially have influenced the earlier decision. See Gibson v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 700 F.Supp. 707, 708 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Ruiz v. Commissioner of DOT, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 858 F.2d 898 (2d Cir.1988). The rule's purpose is to "dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court." Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). A party should not treat a motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987).
The Brokers' argue that this court overlooked section 2110 of the New York Insurance law when it issued the Opinion. In an affirmation submitted in support of the motion for reargument, the Brokers stated:
In fact, the Opinion cited section 2110 at page 1197, stating: (Emphasis added).
Moreover, the Brokers' interpretation of section 2110 finds no support in the statute. That section provides that the Superintendent "may refuse to renew, revoke or may suspend for a period he determines the license of any insurance agent or insurance broker ... if, after notice and hearing, he determines that the licensee ... has violated the Insurance Law." (Emphasis added). Section 304(a) provides for a hearing before the Superintendent or "any designated salaried employee of the department authorized by the superintendent for such purpose." Section 304(b) requires the hearing officer to "report his findings, orally or in writing, to the superintendent with or without recommendation" and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. All Right, Title & Interest In Property
...been met, see Ruiz v. Comm'r of Dept. of Transp. of City of New York, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.1988); B.A.M. Brokerage Corp. v. New York, 724 F.Supp. 146, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corp., 743 F.Supp. 279 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (Cooper, J.), we granted, on September 25......
-
Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
... ... No. 88 Civ. 5380 (RWS) ... United States District ... Miller Music Corp., 174 F.Supp. 192, 195 (S.D.N. Y.1959)); cf ... The NBC Defendants state that they "have no well-grounded legal objection ... ...
-
H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corp.
...of D.O.T. of City of New York, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 858 F.2d 898 (2d Cir.1988); B.A.M. Brokerage Corp. v. New York, 724 F.Supp. 146, 147 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). "Motions for reargument will be grant......