Trombetta v. Novocin
25-817
2d Cir.Apr 8, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta brought copyright-related and statutory claims, representing herself, against Norb Novocin, Marie Novocin, Estate Auctions, Inc. ("EAI Defendants"), and WorthPoint Corporation.
- The claims included violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), New York Artists’ Authorship Rights Act (NYAARA), copyright infringement, identity theft, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The Court previously granted summary judgment for WorthPoint on all claims and granted part of Trombetta’s claims against EAI Defendants, awarding minimal damages.
- Trombetta sought reconsideration of the judgment dismissing most claims and, in the alternative, an extension of time to appeal.
- The Court’s decision here addresses her post-judgment motion for reconsideration (under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)) and alternative request for appeal time extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration standards under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) | Court overlooked key facts and law; errors in prior rulings | No overlooked law or fact; arguments already addressed | Motion for reconsideration denied |
| Handling of discovery and expert witness exclusion | Discovery restrictions and exclusion of experts unfairly prejudiced case | Discovery deadlines well-communicated and enforced appropriately | No basis for relief |
| Consideration of evidence for actual damages and timeliness | Court failed to account for evidence showing damages and timely claims | Evidence inadmissible/inadequate; no material dispute established | Evidence did not alter result |
| Claims for fraud and negligence (pleading grounds) | Should have been allowed to assert additional claims via amendment | Claims were not in operative pleading; deadline firmly set | Court did not err; claims not pled |
Key Cases Cited
- R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (sets standards for reconsideration motions under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3)
- Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc., 183 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 1999) (addresses admissibility and sufficiency of evidence for actual damages)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)