DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2019, pro se plaintiff George P. Persico (“Persico” or “plaintiff”) filed an unjust enrichment claim against defendants Michael F. Cassadei (Cassadei”) and Annmarie Neri (“Neri”). Dkt. No. 1. According to plaintiff’s seven-count complaint, Cassadei and Neri (collectively “defendants”) improperly retained money they collected on plaintiff’s behalf while he traveled out of state. After the parties conducted discovery, Persico, still pro se, moved under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 91. According to plaintiff, he had established as a matter of law that defendants had been unjustly enriched at his expense. Id. Shortly afterward, defendants also moved for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 92. In their filing, defendants recounted the parties’ history and asserted that plaintiff has no facts on which to base his claim that defendants actually owed him any money. Id. The parties extensively briefed those cross-motions. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 93-111. On May 6, 2020, Justin T. Huffman, Esq. entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Persico, Dkt. No. 112, and wrote to this Court to request an adjournment so that plaintiff could submit additional briefing on the summary judgment issues in a proper counseled filing, Dkt. No. 113. That request was granted. Dkt. No. 114. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a counseled response in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 115. On October 20, 2020, a Memorandum — Decision & Order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Persico v. Cassadei, 2020 WL 6146612 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2020). Persico has moved for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g). The motion has been fully briefed and will be consideration on the basis of the submissions without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND Persico is a disabled veteran. Persico Dep., Dkt. No. 115-2 at 12:15-16. He owned a house at 52 Romeyn Avenue in Amsterdam, New York. Id. at 15:14-15, 17:10-17. However, plaintiff was not always present at the property because he often traveled out of state. Id. at 12:15-13:7. In 2010, Neri introduced plaintiff to Cassadei. Persico Dep. at 60:24-61:7. The two became friends. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts (“Defs.’ Facts”), Dkt. No. 92-5 3. Cassadei expressed interested in buying the Romeyn Avenue property from plaintiff, but no purchase was ever made because the property was in a state of disrepair. Id.
4-6. For a short period of time, Cassadei offered to help Persico find tenants for the Romeyn Avenue property. Defs.’ Facts 9. However, Cassadei was not compensated for these efforts and never agreed to be responsible for the property in any way. Id.
