Page:Penguin Books v. New Christian Church.pdf/1

 there is “no room for legal construction or resolution of an ambiguity.” Joseph Martin, Jr, Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher, 52. N.Y.2d 105, 111, 436 N.Y.S.2d 247, 417 N.E.2d 541 (1981). If a contract is unambiguous, courts are required to give effect to the contract as written and may not consider extrinsic evidence to alter or interpret its meaning. Consarc Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 996 F.2d 568, 573 (2d. Cir. 1993). Thus, extrinsic evidence cannot come in to save the escalation clause.

The authorities cited by Arbitron do not provide otherwise.

Reconsideration Under Local Rule 6.3 Is Denied

Even if Arbitron’s motion under Rule 60(b) is converted to a motion for reconsideration under local Rule 6.3, as suggested by Arbitron (Arbitron Reply Mem. at 2 n. 1), it is denied.

A motion for reconsideration “is appropriate, where a court overlooks ‘controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it, on the underlying motion … and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.’” ''Banco de Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 230 F.Supp.2d 427, 428 (S.D.N.Y.2002), (quoting Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp.'', 90 F.Supp.2d 390, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). “The standard for granting … a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration may be granted to ‘correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Banco, 230 F.Supp.2d at 428 (quoting Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F.Supp.2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y.1999)). However, this must be “narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.” Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2001).

Here, Arbitron fails to meet this standard by neither “point[ing] to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked,” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257, nor showing that reconsideration is necessary in order to “correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Banco, 230 F.Supp.2d at 428.

Conclusion

Arbitron’s motion under Rule 60(b) and for reconsideration is thereby denied.

It is so ordered.