SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge.
On September 18, 2000, this Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment. See Legal Aid Society v. City of New York, 114 F. Supp.2d 204 (2000). The facts of the case are discussed therein and need not be repeated here. Defendants now timely move for reconsideration of certain aspects of that decision.
A motion for reconsideration should be granted only where the moving party demonstrates that the Court has overlooked factual matters or controlling decisions that were presented to it on the underlying motion. See Local Rule 6.3; Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); Makse Jewelry Inc. v. Rock, No. 99 Civ. 11420, 2000 WL 1880335, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2000). This standard is narrowly construed and strictly applied against the moving party so as to "dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court." Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 8833, 2000 WL 235273, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2000). Moreover, the moving party may not "advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court."Wiesner v. 321 West 16th Street Assoc., No. 00 Civ. 1423, 2000 WL 1585680, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2000). The decision to grant or deny the motion is committed to the sound discretion of the district court Devlin v. Transportation Communications Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 132 (2d Cir. 1999).
Defendants fail to demonstrate that this Court has overlooked factual matters or controlling decisions that were presented to it on the underlying motion. Rather, defendants restate arguments previously made and considered by the Court, or make new arguments which they failed to raise on the underlying motion despite ample opportunity to do so. For each of these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED.