Rotundo v. Village of Yorkville, New York
6:09-cv-01262
N.D.N.Y.Apr 25, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Rotundo, Jr. and Rotundo sued the Village of Yorkville and village officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted in part and denied in part on March 4, 2011, with several claims dismissed and others remaining for trial.
- The prior decision dismissed Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims, along with NY state contract-related claims.
- Summary judgment was denied as to First Amendment retaliation, NY free speech, prima facie tort, and loss of consortium claims, which remained for trial.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration to reinstate the dismissed Fourteenth Amendment and NY Constitution, Art. I, § 6 procedural due process claims.
- The motion for reconsideration argued misinterpretation of Civil Service Law § 75 and sought to remedy a claimed error to protect public employees’ discipline/discharge rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration of due process claim (Fourteenth Amendment). | Rotundo argues § 75 was misread; remedy necessary to prevent manifest injustice. | Defendants contend no new law, new evidence, or clear error to justify reconsideration. | Denied; no clear error or manifest injustice shown. |
| Reconsideration of NY Constitution due process claim (Art. I, § 6). | Rotundo asserts misinterpretation of § 75 affects procedural due process protections. | Defendants maintain arguments were previously considered and no basis for reconsideration exists. | Denied; no basis shown to alter the prior ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thornton, 160 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1896) (reconsideration standards and rationale)
- Butler v. Finegan, 269 N.Y. 587 (N.Y. 1935) (historical treatment of reconsideration and error correction)
- Spivak v. Delaney, 264 N.Y. 491 (N.Y. 1934) (precedent on reconsideration arguments)
- Schaefer v. Rathmann, 237 A.D. 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1933) (older authorities cited on reconsideration standards)
