a motion for reconsideration “unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked ... 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); see also Local Civil Rule 6.3 (“There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked.”). Moreover, a party may not use a motion for reconsideration to “relitigate an issue already decided” by advancing novel arguments that could have been raised previously. Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257; see also Kalamas v. Consumer Solutions REO, LLC, 09-CV-5045, 2011 WL 6026303, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011) (Feuerstein, J.) (<HOLDING>) B. Discussion Plaintiff insists that the
holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding that only issues not known at the time of the original trial or issues not available on direct appeal may be properly raised through postconviction proceedings holding that reconsideration should not be granted where the moving party seeks to introduce additional facts not in the record on the original motion or advances new arguments or issues that could have been raised on the original motion holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally