I've heard plenty of lawyers and at least a few judges say there's "no such thing" as a motion to reconsider. For anyone who needs some alternative authority, there's Stringer v. Packaging Corporation of America, No. 4-03-1080 (4th Dist. 2004), in which the court explained the limited situations in which a motion to reconsider is appropriate:
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the trial court's attention (1) newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the hearing, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court's previous application of existing law. The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider lies within the trial court's discretion.
Id. (citation omitted). The Stringer court also stated that if the motion to reconsider is based upon newly-discovered evidence, "a party must show that the newly discovered evidence existed before the initial hearing but had not yet been discovered or was otherwise unobtainable."
Finally, the court noted that an alternative to a motion to reconsider is a "motion to reopen proofs," which is another way of bringing new evidence to a trial court's attention. The necessary components of this motion are listed in the linked decision.