Order | Filed: September 18, 2026
| Entered: September 18, 2026
Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon et al
Real Property: Other | New York Southern
Memo Endorsement
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 382 Objection (non-motion) filed by Matthew J. Fecteau. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's last letter did not clearly request reconsideration or frame itself as a Motion for Reconsideration. Instead, it requested to "bring this Court's attention to" the above-described issue, and argued that "the Second Amended Complaint" clearly states a claim, before charging that the Court would "likely disregard or marginalize" the new pleading, expressing, among other opinions, that the Court was seeking to "distract or even scare [Plaintiff] away" from the litigation out of a "love affair with a business engaged in fraud." (Dkt. No. 377.) Most critically, Plaintiff said that the Court's actions "would cause a reasonable observer to question [the Court's] impartiality" and took the position that the Court's decisions "trigger[ed] mandatory disqualification under Canon 3C(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)." (Id.) The Court is hard-pressed to see how construing an argument that it was mandatorily disqualified as a request to recuse violated the party presentation principle. In any event, construing Plaintiff's request as one for reconsideration, the Court denies it. The standard for reconsideration is "strict"; such requests are granted "only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Elisa W. v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-5273, 2024 WL 5155127, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2024). Plaintiff has not identified any "change of controlling law" or "new evidence." Nor has he identified any "clear error" or need to prevent "manifest injustice." Rather, the Court's earlier determination was correct. At the time of the Court's March 25, 2026 Opinion, the above-described allegations were not included in the operative pleading in this Action. Indeed, they could not have been included, because they postdate the time of that filing. In other words, on March 25, 2026, they were "new allegations," when compared to the operative pleading, "asserted... in response to a motion for summary judgment and not added to the complaint by amendment," such that they "are improper and need not be considered" on a Motion for Summary Judgment. Jordan v. Wright, No. 24-CV-1166, 2026 WL 1266041, at *4 (D. Conn. May 8, 2026). Accordingly, they were not properly before the Court on March 25, 2026. As Plaintiff should be aware, the Court's Opinion provided him with an opportunity to amend his complaint. Amendment is the proper way to bring new issues before the Court. See id. To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to address the merits of his amended pleading, this would be an improper deviation from the adversarial model of our justice system. Issues related to the facts alleged in the SAC, (see Dkt. No. 364), will be addressed in due course through the ordinary procedural channels. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/18/2026) (ar)