In Mitchell v. New York City, No. 161543/2018, 2021 WL 1825353 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 30, 2021), the court denied plaintiff’s motion to reargue the court’s prior decision granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims, as well as to amend the complaint.
As to the former, the court explained:
After review of the papers submitted and considered herein, plaintiff’s motion to reargue is denied. This court’s December 24, 2019 decision did not overlook or misapprehend any matters of fact or law that would warrant leave to reargue. Specifically, plaintiff asserts, in her complaint, in opposition to the City’s motion for summary judgment, and in support of the instant motion seeking reargument, a general culture of gender and racial discrimination within NYPD HWY but fails to provide specific instances where she was discriminated against on the basis of her race or gender. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions fail to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Further, upon consideration of the record as a whole, the court properly decided that a summary determination as to plaintiff’s causes of action for racial discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment was appropriate. The purpose of a motion to reargue is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided. See Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558.
The court also denied that branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to amend the complaint, reasoning that “[h]ere, insofar as the amended complaint annexed to the moving papers fails to clearly show the changes or additions made to the pleadings in compliance with CPLR 3025(b) it is procedurally defective.”