Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

5:11-CV-1374

Attorney(S)

OFFICE OF LELAND T. WILLIAMS Attorneys for Plaintiff LAW OFFICES OF THERESA G. PULEO Attorneys for the Defendant City of Ithaca OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY COUNSEL Attorneys for the Defendant Cornell University OF COUNSEL: LELAND T. WILLIAMS, ESQ. DAVID TWICHELL, ESQ. NELSON E. ROTH, ESQ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a motion for reconsideration of a prior Memorandum-Decision and Order ("MDO") filed on March 15, 2012, which granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings in the case of Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca. The defendants, City of Ithaca and Cornell University, filed a motion for reconsideration challenging aspects of the MDO. Plaintiff responded to this motion. The underlying case involves allegations related to the defendants' duty to maintain the Thurston Avenue Bridge in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable suicides.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants met the standard for reconsideration of the court's prior MDO under the criteria of (1) intervening change in controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence, or (3) correction of clear error of law or prevention of manifest injustice.
Whether the MDO's statements regarding foreseeability of suicide constituted a binding determination of law deciding the merits of the negligence claims against defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

They conceded there was no new controlling law or new evidence to justify reconsideration.
They argued the MDO created a risk of manifest injustice by interpreting two paragraphs as a binding legal determination on the negligence claims.
The defendants specifically challenged language in the MDO that recognized their duty to maintain the bridge to prevent foreseeable suicides and rejected their argument that the particular suicide was unforeseeable.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff’s arguments beyond noting that plaintiff responded to the motion for reconsideration.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
United States v. Bocio, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)	Standards for granting a motion for reconsideration, including controlling decisions or data overlooked by the court.	Outlined the three grounds for reconsideration: intervening change in law, new evidence, or correcting clear error/preventing manifest injustice.
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)	Clarification on the standard for reconsideration motions.	Quoted by the court to emphasize the necessity of pointing to overlooked controlling decisions or data.
Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010)	On motions for judgment on the pleadings, courts must accept allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.	Used to remind parties that the MDO assumed truth of the complaint’s allegations for purposes of the judgment on the pleadings motion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the established standard for motions for reconsideration, referencing United States v. Bocio and Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., and found that the defendants did not present any new controlling law or evidence to justify reconsideration. Their argument rested solely on the potential for manifest injustice due to the interpretation of two paragraphs in the prior MDO. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the MDO's language was not a binding determination of the merits but rather a reflection of accepted allegations for the purpose of the motion on the pleadings. The court further reiterated the principle from Hayden v. Paterson that factual allegations must be accepted as true at this procedural stage. Therefore, no clear error of law or manifest injustice was demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The court DENIED the defendants' motion for reconsideration.

The direct effect of this decision is that the prior Memorandum-Decision and Order stands as issued, maintaining the partial grant and denial of the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court did not establish any new precedent or alter the legal landscape beyond confirming the procedural standards for reconsideration and the proper treatment of factual allegations at the pleadings stage.

Show full summary ...

HOWARD I. GINSBURG, as Administrator of the Estate of Bradley Marc Ginsburg, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ITHACA and CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

OFFICE OF LELAND T. WILLIAMS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LAW OFFICES OF THERESA G. PULEO

Attorneys for the Defendant City of Ithaca

OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY COUNSEL

Attorneys for the Defendant Cornell University

OF COUNSEL:

LELAND T. WILLIAMS, ESQ.

DAVID TWICHELL, ESQ.

NELSON E. ROTH, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD

United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

On March 15, 2012, a Memorandum-Decision and Order ("MDO") was filed granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca, _F. Supp. 2d_, 2012 WL 858412 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). On March 28, 2012, defendant City of Ithaca filed a motion for reconsideration of the MDO. Dkt. No. 36. The following day, defendant Cornell University joined this motion. Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff has responded. Dkt. No. 38.

In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, "[t]he moving party must 'point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.'" United States v. Bocio, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (Kahn, J.) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). The three grounds upon which such a motion may be granted include: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendants concede there is neither new law nor new evidence to justify reconsideration. They instead argue that, without clarification, the MDO creates potential for manifest injustice. Specifically, defendants worry that two paragraphs constitute "binding determination of a rule of law" that decides the merits of the negligence claims against them. This argument is unpersuasive. The MDO speaks for itself.

These paragraphs are: (1) "As alleged in the amended complaint, as owner and controller of the Thurston Avenue Bridge, defendants had a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable suicides."; and (2) "Defendants thereby conclude that his suicide was unforeseeable, absolving them of any liability. However, the possibility that Bradley in particular would commit suicide is irrelevant. It was clearly foreseeable that someone may commit suicide by jumping off the Thurston Avenue Bridge." Ginsburg, 2012 WL 858412, at *3-4.

The parties are reminded that when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court is to accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Indeed, the MDO specifically noted that "[t]he following facts, taken from the amended complaint and documents incorporated by reference thereto, are assumed true for purposes of the motions for judgment on the pleadings." Ginsburg, 2012 WL 858412, at *1.

Accordingly, defendants' motion for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 36, 37) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2012

Utica, New York.

______________