Fessehzion v. Hudson Group et al, No. 1:2008cv10665 - Document 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER:#97973 Having considered the additional information Fessehazion has presented, her motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby GRANTED. Plaintifrs case will be added to the list of cases eligible lor the appointment of counsel. Th e status conference scheduled for October 1, 2009. at 10:00 a.m. is adjourned to December 1, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. If no counsel has appeared as of that date, Fessehazion may be required to proceed in the absence of counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 8/31/2009) (tve) Modified on 9/1/2009 (eef).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < RUT FESSEHAZION, Plaintiff, - against HUDSON GROUP, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : OPINION & ORDER 08 Civ. 10665 (BSJ) (RLE) < RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Rut Fessehazion commenced this action on December 9, 2008, alleging discrimination in employment in violation of municipal law, New York State law, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pending before the Court is Fessehazion s motion for reconsideration of this Court s denial of her motion for the appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, Fessehazion s application is GRANTED. II. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are set forth in greater detail in this Court s Opinion & Order of August 21, 2009. (See Doc. No. 16.) In that Opinion & Order, the Court denied without prejudice Fessehazion s request for the appointment of counsel. (Id.) During a status conference before the Court on August 27, 2009, Fessehazion presented additional information about her case, and orally moved the Court to reconsider its denial of her application. III. DISCUSSION To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must show that the court overlooked factual matters or controlling precedent that might have materially influenced its earlier decision. Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 460, 473 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing Morser v. AT&T Info. Sys., 715 F. Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). This criteria is strictly construed against the moving party. See Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assoc., L.P., 153 F.R.D. 60, 65 (S.D.N.Y.1994); New York News Inc. v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York, 139 F.R.D. 294, 294-95 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff d, 972 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.1992). Motions for reconsideration lie within the sound discretion of the district court. McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir.1983). S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3 instructs that: A notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within ten (10) days after the entry of the court s determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment. . . . (emphasis in original). (Local Civ. R. 6.3.) Fessehazion s motion for reconsideration, made less than ten days after the Court s entry of its determination on her original motion, is timely. Moreover, as noted in this Court s August 21, 2009, Opinion & Order, Fessehazion satisfies the threshold requirement of indigence insofar as her in forma pauperis status establishes her inability to afford counsel. Based on the facts alleged in her Complaint, and the additional details she presented to the Court during the August 27, 2009, conference, Fessehazion s claim appears to be sufficiently meritorious to also satisfy the second threshold requirement that her position seem[] likely to be of substance. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). Once an initial determination has been made as to indigence and merit, the Court has discretion to consider: 1) the indigent s ability to investigate the crucial facts; 2) whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.