Silva et al v. Farrish et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
DAVID T. SILVA, GERROD T. SMITH, AND
JONATHAN K. SMITH, Members of the Shinnecock
Indian Nation,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
-against-
Civil Action
No. 18-3648 (GRB) (SIL)
BRIAN FARRISH, JAMIE GREENWOOD,
EVAN LACZI, BASIL SEGGOS, NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, and SUFFOLK COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
Before this Court is a motion for reconsideration by Plaintiffs David Silva, Gerrod Smith,
and Jonathan Smith. Docket Entry (“DE”) 168-1. In a Memorandum of Decision & Order dated
October 3rd, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants Basil Seggos, Brian
Farrish, and Evan Laczi. DE 163.
While Plaintiffs boldly assert that “this Court wholly mischaracterized Plaintiffs’
remaining claim for relief as a challenge to New York State’s American eel regulations,” it is
actually Plaintiffs who are mischaracterizing this Court’s determination and their own claim. DE
168-1 at 5. In their Complaint Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief “arising from a
pattern of criminal prosecutions by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs” by “interfering with
Plaintiffs’ un-relinquished aboriginal and retained rights to fish in the waters of Shinnecock
Bay.” DE 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiffs further complained that “the Defendants have ticketed, seized fish
FILED
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
11/12/2025 3:21 pm
Case 2:18-cv-03648-GRB-SIL Document 169 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
and fishing equipment, and prosecuted the Plaintiffs for alleged criminal offenses in alleged
violation of New York State law involving fishing … in Shinnecock Bay and its estuary waters
…” Id. ¶ 16. Given that Plaintiff Silva was convicted in state court for eel fishing without a
commercial license, see DE 126-1 ¶ 37, the state’s regulations designed to protect American eels
were directly at issue.
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration fails because they cannot “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.” Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu
Hannong Chem. Co., Ltd., 628 F. Ap’s 793, 796 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Court has nothing to add beyond its reasoning in the
October 3rd Order. Absent binding precedent, the Court found the respective opinions by Judges
Kuntz and Bianco to be highly persuasive. Plaintiffs fail to mention that New York v. Shinnecock
Indian Nation, 523 F. Supp. 2d 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) was vacated on other grounds. Compare
DE 168-1 at 13 (“The Court’s reliance on then-Judge Bianco’s vacated decision in Shinnecock
Indian Nation as ‘highly persuasive’ authority … merits reconsideration.”).
Plaintiffs’ attempts to relitigate this case bring to mind an old adage every law student has
heard: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side,
pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." Regardless of how
loudly Plaintiffs pound the table, their arguments lack merit.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary R. Brown
Dated: November 12, 2025 GARY R. BROWN
Central Islip, New York United States District Judge
Case 2:18-cv-03648-GRB-SIL Document 169 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>