Case Information
*1 Case 5:04-cv-00325-GTS-GJD Document 68 Filed 07/18/08 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
WINIFRED MACHEDA and RICHARD MACHEDA,
Plaintiffs, -v- 5:04-CV-325 HOUSEHOLD FINANCE REALTY CORPORATION
OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
APPEARANCES:
RONALD L. VAN NORSTRAND, ESQ.
Suite 530, Century Plaza
201 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP Preston L. Zarlock, Esq., of counsel
William H. Baaki, Esq., of counsel
3400 HSBC Center
Buffalo, New York 14203
Attorneys for Defendant
Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant moves (Dkt. No. 62) for reconsideration of this Court’s June 26, 2008 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 62) deciding defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 48). Defendant complains that the Court overlooked certain aspects of its summary judgment motion.
The Court’s June 26, 2008 decision did not discuss plaintiffs’ second cause of action seeking relief under New York General Business Law § 349(h), nor did it discuss every issue bearing on the loan amount and “points and fees” calculation. Rather, on reviewing the entire *2 Case 5:04-cv-00325-GTS-GJD Document 68 Filed 07/18/08 Page 2 of 2 record and considering all issues, the Court determined that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment except to extent of establishing that plaintiffs are not entitled to rescind the portion of the loan that refinanced their previous loan with defendant. In its Memorandum- Decision and Order, the Court discussed those issues it viewed as most important in resolving the motions, and dealt with the others by stating: “The other issues raised by the parties do not warrant summary judgment.” Defendants make no showing of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of previously unavailable evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice, see Doe v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs ., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983), nor is there any other basis for reconsideration. Reconsideration is denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED that defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 62) for reconsideration of this Court’s June 26, 2008 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 61) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED
July 18, 2008
Syracuse, New York
-2-