Purchase Partners, LLC v. Carver Federal Savings Bank, No. 1:2009cv09687 - Document 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 314 CROSS MOTION to Authorize Withdrawal of Funds from Escrow filed by Seidman & Pincus, LLC. In light of the foregoing, Purchase Partners's motion for reconsideration is frivolous, if not sanctionable, and th erefore DENIED. Further, S&P's unopposed cross-motion seeking authorization to withdraw the amount of the lien from its IOLTA trust account is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 312, 313, and 314. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/31/2014) (mro)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : PURCHASE PARTNERS, LLC, : : : Plaintiff, : -v: : CARVER FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, : : Defendant, : : -v: : MARINER S BANK and PAUL SCHMIDT, SR., : : Third-Party Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 3/31/2014 09 Civ. 9687 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On February 5, 2014, the Court granted the motion of Seidman & Pincus, LLC ( S&P ), former counsel of record to Plaintiff Purchase Partners, LLC ( Purchase Partners ), seeking an order fixing a charging lien against Purchase Partners. (Docket No. 311). Purchase Partners now moves, pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59, and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for reconsideration of that ruling. (Docket Nos. 312-13). Although the standards vary somewhat among those Rules, it is well established that none of them is a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 13, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1805 (2013). Nevertheless, that is precisely what Purchase Partners seeks to do here, as the sole premise of its motion that 1 the Court erred in applying New York law rather than New Jersey law is directly contrary to the position that Purchase Partners itself took in connection with the original motion. (See Docket No. 301, at 1 (stating that the relationship between Purchase Partners and S&P was an attorney-client relationship arising solely under the law of the State of New York )). 1 In light of the foregoing, Purchase Partners s motion for reconsideration is frivolous, if not sanctionable, and therefore DENIED. Further, S&P s unopposed cross-motion seeking authorization to withdraw the amount of the lien from its IOLTA trust account is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 312, 313, and 314. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2014 New York, New York 1 Putting aside the fact that Purchase Partners cannot now argue for application of New York law, the Court s application of New York law to the original motion was plainly proper in light of the parties agreement that New York law should be applied. See, e.g., Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 639 F.3d 557, 566 (2d Cir. 2011) ( [W]here the parties agree that New York law controls, this is sufficient to establish choice of law. ). 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.