Getso v. Harvard University Extension School, et al., No. 1:2010cv04624 - Document 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION: Plaintiff Pro Se Robert Getso ("Getso" or "Plaintiff") has submitted a "Motion to Re-Argue" this Court's January 5, 2011 Opinion (the "January 5 Opinion") granting Defendant Harvard University Ext ension School's (the "School" or "Defendant") motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Getso has also moved this Court to Charge Defendant with perjury and has moved for an extension of time to file an appeal of the January 5 Opinion. Based on the conclusions and facts set forth above, all three of Getso's motions are denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/17/2011) (mro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x ROBERT GETSO, Plaintiff (Pro Se , OPINION againstHARVARD UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SCHOOL, Defendant. --- -------- --- ---- --- ---- ------X A P PEA RAN C E S: Pro Se ROBERT GETSO P.O. Box 1043 Old Chelsea Station New York, NY 10113 At 10 Civ. 4624 for Defendant FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 By: Katherine L. Pringle, Esq. Andrew S. Pak, Esq. Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff se Robert Getso ("Getso" or "Plaintiff") has submitted a "Motion to Re-Argue" this Court's January 5, 2011 Opinion (the "January 5 Opinion") granting Defendant Harvard University Extension School's (the "School" or "Defendant") motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Getso has also moved this Court to Charge Defendant with perjury and has moved for an extension of time to file an appeal of the January 5 Opinion. For the reasons set forth below, all three motions are denied. Familiarity with the facts of this proceeding is assumed. instant motions were marked fully submitted on March 2, 2011. The "Motion to Re-Argue" is Denied On January 19, 2011, Getso filed a "Motion to ReArgue." By Order dated January 21, 2011, this Court treated Getso's motion as a motion for reconsideration of the January 5 Opinion. 1 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, "'the moving party must demonstrate controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision.'" Word v. Croce, No. 01 Civ. 9614, 2004 WL 434038, at *2 Mar. 9, 2004) (S.D.N.Y. (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); see also williams v. New York 't of Corr. 219 F.R.D. 78, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07 Civ. 5574, 2008 WL 3466400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2008) ("The major grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.,n (quoting Vi At 1. -~'----- Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992))). "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an 'extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. "' Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Sec. Lit (quoting _I_n r~e__ ___ H_e_a~l~t~h ~~~~~~I~n~c~. __ ., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 2 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). shold for Getso has failed to meet the recons have ion, as all of the allegations in his motion could made previously and are evant to his claims. 1 rst, Getso alleges that Defendant "lied to the Court by chall sely claiming there is a financial aid application," and s the Court's reference to such application in its January 5 Opinion. re (Mot. ~ 2.) Both Defendant and the Court to an exhibit submitted by Getso, which states that ion was missing from s financial aid application. to the instant motion, Getso had not alleged that not submit a financial aid ication. averments regarding financi to his claims." did Regardless, Getso's aid communications are "irrelevant January 5 Opinion 21. Second, Getso leges that Defendant improperly claimed to have been unaware of certain documents used to support Getso's Amended Complaint. this argument have (Mot. ~ 3.) Not only could raised in response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, but these documents were addressed by Defendant in its argument that the documents do not evidence a contract. Court, having reviewed documents at issue, agreed with Defendant and found that the documents "do 3 not evidence or mani School to be enroll degree. II t any agreement between Getso and the in the degree program or to receive a January 5 Opinion 14. Third, Getso's allegation that "New York State's law on higher education does not bar students from being awarded more than one undergraduate degree as long as they are not in the same field ll (Mot. ~ 5) has no bearing whatsoever on the January 5 Opinion or Defendant's conduct. Defendant is not obligated to permit students with an undergraduate degree to pursue another undergraduate appropriately Moreover, Defendant ected Getso because of his false statement of credentials and ineligibility under the School's admission criteria. See January 5 Opinion 17-19. Fourth, Getso al i~iS that a new discovery" that the Harvard Extension School degree requires completion as many as fourteen courses. (Mot. ~ 6.) degree requirements are irrelevant, because Getso was denied enrollment in the program. Fifth, Getso's legations that Defendant refunded tuition for a cancelled course, but not 4 , is entirely evant to the claims at issue in this dispute and addressed in the January 5 Opinion. Finally, Getso argues that Defendant's leged lies ln its papers constituted a departure from accepted norms and should have prevented Defendant from being entitled to any deference, under the Univers 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985). However, not only has Getso not shown any lies, but such an argument would not alter s Court's finding in its January 5 Opinion that Dean Spreadbury made a credible determination that Getso's "dishonesty and refusal to answer reasonable quest ineligible." about his credent s made him January 5 Opinion 18. As set forth above, Getso failed to present any controlling law or factual matters that the Court overlooked in its January 5 Opinion. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is denied. Defendant Has Not Committed Perjury In addit to his motion for reconsideration, Getso filed on February 5, 2011 a motion" 5 summary judgment favor of plaintiff, or in the alternat ury.n [sic] with charging defendants The substantive paragraphs of the motion are identical to the motion for reconsideration, discussed above. Getso's motion to charge Defendant with perjury rests on three leged false statements made by Defendant. F , Getso claims Defendant falsely that Getso applied for financ nei (Mot. ~ 3.) sented However, Defendant nor Dean Spreadbury made any such representation. Rather, Defendant sent a letter to Getso indicating that information was missing from Getso's application for financial aid. Second, Getso that Defendant 1 to the Court by claiming to be unaware of documents filed by Getso with his amended complaint, as discussed above. However, Defendant merely argued that those documents do not evidence a contract. It did not claim to be unaware of those documents. Third, Getso claims that Dean Spreadbury claimed to have been unaware of Getso's educational background. 6 Dean Spreadbury made no such claim. Rather, she stated in her affidavit that Getso did not disclose any prior univers s attended in his application, but referred to himself as "Dr. Getso" in correspondence. As a result, Dean Spreadbury contacted Getso concerning the discrepancy. Neither Defendant nor Dean Spreadbury made any misrepresentations to the Court, and therefore cannot be charged with perjury. Getso's motion is denied. Getso's Motion for an Extension is Denied as Moot so moved for an extension of the deadline Getso has for filing an appeal of the January 5 Opinion. Getso had thirty days from the entry Opinion within which to appeal that decision. 4(a) (1) (A). 2011. the January 5 Fed. R. App. P. The January 5 Opinion was entered on January 13, Because Getso moved for reconsideration on January 19, 2011, within ten days of the entry of the January 5 Opinion, the time within which to file an appeal tolled until the underlying opinion is ision on the motion for reconsideration. R. App. P. 4 (a) (4) (A) i Fed. see Lora v. O'Heaney, 602 F.3d 106, 110 7 (2d Cir. 2010) i cf. ~------~~--------&------------- , 236 F.3d 112, Camacho 114-16 (2d Cir. 2000) (dismissing appeal from denial of qualified immunity because untimely motion for reconsideration did not toll time to file interlocutory appeal) . Accordingly, Getso's motion for an extension is denied as moot. The clock for filing an appeal, which started when the January 5 Opinion was entered on January 13, stopped when Getso filed his motion for reconsideration on January 19. had elapsed. Six days Thus, Getso has 24 days from the entry of this decision within which to appeal the January 5 Opinion. Conclusion Based on the conclusions and facts set forth above, 1 three of Getso's motions are denied. It is so ordered. 7' New York, NY March / 2011 U.S.D.J. 8
]]>
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.
