Case Activity (5244)

1. Order | Filed: July 15, 2026 Arroyo v. Rhodes et al

   Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | New York Southern

   Order

   ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration. Application DENIED. Motions for reconsideration must address "matters or controlling decisions which the moving party believes the court has overlooked" that "might reasonably be expect ed to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Local R. 6.3; Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The standard is thus "strict," and such motions are "not a vehicle for relitigating old issues... or ot herwise taking a second bite at the apple." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, 781 F. Supp. 3d 184, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (citation omitted). H ere, Plaintiff has not raised any allegations or arguments that the Court overlooked in determining that he did not demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the merits. See generally ECF No. 39. Among other deficiencies, Mr. Arroyo still fails to identify a future court date, does not demonstrate that he is a qualified individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and does not explain why a plastic water bottle is not an effective accommodation. See id. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 40. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 7/15/2026) (rro)

2. Response | Filed: July 15, 2026 | Entered: July 15, 2026 Byrthen v. New York State Unified Court System et al

   Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | New York Eastern

   Reply in Support

   REPLY in Support re 35 MOTION to Dismiss , 37 Memorandum in Opposition filed by New York State Unified Court System, Joseph A. Zayas. (Siudzinski, Michael)

3. 5242 additional result(s)