... To the extent that Nipro raises new arguments in its motion -- including that the Court should adopt a middle-ground interest rate between the federal statutory rate and the New York State rate similar to the one adopted by the arbitral panel -- Nipro had the opportunity to make that argument in its prior briefing on the underlying motion and chose not to do so. Nipro's arguments that delays due to service and negotiations between the parties should not count towards the period of interest accruing could also have been raised in its prior briefing but were not. Although Nipro argues that Trividia only accused it of delaying proceedings in its brief in reply to its motion for fees, Resp. Reply, Dkt. 65 at 4, delays in service were well-known to the Court and Nipro could have addressed the issue regardless of whether Trividia affirmatively raised it.2 Nipro was certainly on notice before filing its response in opposition to Trividia's motion of the need to address allegations that its behavior dragged out this process and therefore merited the Court granting a higher interest rate.3
For those reasons, Nipro's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Docket 62.