Byrne v. Cohoes Housing Authority et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
REBECCA JEAN BYRNE,
Plaintiff,
1:25-CV-589
v. 	(DNH/DJS)
COHOES HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
Several non-dispositive motions are presently pending in this matter. 	The Court
notes that various groups of Defendants have also moved to dismiss and those motions
will be addressed in due course by the assigned District Court Judge.
A. Motion for Reconsideration
On September 9, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Order which, in part,
denied a letter request by Plaintiff that equitable tolling be applied to Plaintiff’s claims to
avoid any dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds. 	Dkt. No. 53 at p. 1. 	Now
pending is a Motion to Reconsider that determination under F ED . R. CIV . P. 59 and 60.
Dkt. No. 75 at p. 1. In the Motion, Plaintiff argues again why equitable tolling should be
applied. Id. at p. 2.
“A court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light;
Case 1:25-cv-00589-DNH-DJS Document 158 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice.” Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Doe v. New
York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). None of these bases is
implicated by Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. In denying the original motion, the
Court noted only that the statute of limitations and the applicability of equitable tolling
were already before the District Court by way of a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 53 at p.
1; see also Dkt. No. 49-1. Because of that, the issue was best deferred to consideration
of that Motion. The pending Motion for Reconsideration identifies no intervening change
in the controlling law or relevant new evidence. Nor can Plaintiff assert that having this
issue addressed on the merits as part of the pending motion to dismiss was either a clear
error of law or manifestly unjust.
For these reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
B. Motions to Amend
Plaintiff has filed two motions regarding leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 91 & 95. While FED . R. CIV . P. 15(a) states, in pertinent part, that
leave to amend a pleading should be “freely given when justice so requires,” Tocker v.
Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481, 491 (2d Cir. 2006), the circumstances of this case
warrant denial of the application at this time. 	“[A]mended pleadings must be complete
pleadings.” 	Turane v. New York, 2020 WL 2124099, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020).
“One of the purposes of the requirement that an amended complaint be a complete
Case 1:25-cv-00589-DNH-DJS Document 158 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
pleading is to ensure that all of the allegations asserted against the defendants are
contained in a single document, thereby reducing the likelihood that a party will overlook
one or more allegations against him.” 	Id. (internal quotation, alteration, and citation
omitted). 	Here, it appears clear that the proposed second amended complaint is not a
complete pleading. It contains limited factual pleading compared to the current operative
pleading. 	Compare Dkt. No. 17 with Dkt. No. 91. 	The declaration accompanying the
motion to amend contains significantly more factual pleading and it is unclear whether
those facts are intended to be included in the proposed amendment. See Dkt. No. 91 at p.
8. Moreover, under this Court’s Local Rules, the Motion to Amend should have, but did
not, include a redlined version that clearly shows the nature of the proposed amendments.
L.R. 15.1(a). The failure to do so here is an additional ground for denial of the Motion.
Syfert v. City of Rome, 2020 WL 7053542, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2020).
C. Remaining Motions
Several additional motions concerning striking of documents filed on the docket
are pending with the undersigned. Dkt. Nos. 82, 99, & 152. Those Motions are denied.
Bradshaw v. Piccolo, 772 F. Supp. 3d 331, 341 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (noting a court’s
discretionary authority to strike filings). 	Plaintiff, however, is again cautioned that the
filing of extraneous material on the Court’s docket can result in sanctions, including the
striking of those documents.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
Case 1:25-cv-00589-DNH-DJS Document 158 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
ORDERED, that the Motions filed at Docket Nos. 75, 82, 91, 95, 99, and 152 are
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order
upon the parties to this action.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-00589-DNH-DJS Document 158 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4