Meenu GAIND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angel Garcia CORDERO, Anta Inversiones Y Asesoramiento S.A., Defendants-Appellees, Edward Guinot Pierot, Felicia Pierot Choi Brody, Catherine Pierot Chen Zicherman, Pierot Enterprise, Inc., Palm Beach Trading, Inc., Anla Internacional Aseramiento Fianciero, S.L., Robert Jacob Pierot, Jr., Individually and in his capacity as the executor of the estate of Robert Jacob Pierot, Sr. and in his capacity as the trustee to the Trust of Julie Pierot Ziegler for the benefit of her son Dustion Ziegler, Defendants.1, 515 F. App'x 68

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Meenu Gaind, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order denying her motion to reconsider its grant of

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this contractual dispute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. DISCUSSION Where a motion to reconsider is filed within 28 days of the entry of an order, a timely notice of appeal from the denial of that motion also “suffices to bring up for review the underlying [order]” and renders the appeal from the underlying order timely. See “R” Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio, 540 F.3d 115, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2008).

But a district court’s grant of a motion to extend the time in which to file a motion to reconsider does not extend this time period. See Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Grp., Inc., 204 F.3d 397, 401 (2d Cir.2000). As Gaind’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after the underlying judgment was entered, her notice of appeal does not raise the underlying judgment for appellate review. Our review on appeal therefore is limited to considering the District Court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration. This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.

Universal Church v. Geltzer, 463 F.3d 218, 228 (2d Cir.2006). A court abuses its discretion when it “base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or render[s] a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). An independent review of the record demonstrates that the District Court properly denied Gaind’s reconsideration motion.

Gaind’s proffered new evidence generally was irrelevant and inadmissible, and the reconsideration motion otherwise raised new claims that could have been raised in opposing

summary judgment and claims that previously had been rejected by the District Court. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaind’s reconsideration motion, substantially for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned decision. CONCLUSION We have considered all of Gaind’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court,