Otto v. Town of Washington
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
M. Heidi Otto appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Charles L. Brieant, Judge),
We affirm the dismissal of Otto’s complaint for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See M. Heidi Otto v. Town of Washington, et al., No. 02 CIVIL 6547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2002). Otto’s motion for reconsideration, filed more than ten days after the judgment was docketed, was untimely. See S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. Any pending motions are hereby denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- M. Heidi OTTO v. TOWN OF WASHINGTON, Planning Board, Town Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, John Gifford, attorney for Van Dewater and Van Dewater, Andrew Lalli, John Evangelista, Supervisor, Theodore Briigs, Thomas Fiore, Building Inspector, Ruth Fiore, Zoning Administrator, the People of the State of New York, the State of New York, St. Paul Federal Savings Bank, Stein and Sheidlower LLP, Dutchess County Office of Probation
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published