Hall v. Annucci

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 24, 2022
• Docket: 7:19-cv-05521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ENDORSED oe

Hall, 9A SAIL □ Mgt st □□□ at A.

TEE □□□□

tao EMAILS IE ER fy □□ Lol Lomplawt pursuant Ta 4 Use $993 15

Lmabmmends 23¢tape poles 7a ie Con alate DUE PROCESS OF atop © at is Coutts Oeyer ENTEREN O10

FACOG THaAl— wolves THE CAST RMICT Lisa) y / fa: J 4p os FER, Vv LP Lp, al, 4, ) / Le 545 Ca) ,

Sex tf ATi. O10 THE Q0RT 2F THE NesTeicr. Camo BE -_gOeDLED DRAB TE OnbmER Fin THE hicr Count Av PED ELA. Llouat of gapenls 13s_Jodentess BF LACK OF ili ler ic Zz a. THE FACE 61 LIpmd-F7 rite €?, □□□ T22 Ise FAuft dng SGMENT~ YYOED Leb TS tfatTEn STATES Laue oF Lop pedi FER THE

NeZive7 AT /S38UE LIAS □ Oa) My AZ 23) They RESULTED 1? COTE EN, IRREGULAR LAR NEWELL OF bb 2 FO an MeFew dee SGmMEWRT_ AY SPL (2 37. aF €79HT (4%) D&FEPrASTS FEL □ 2 ws LEX Cring wot Ans MOUTON A te (Pe An KER Wii IS we CFROP Ridé □□□□

LY. S S Se. LEX US / □□ ¥ Z —— □□ □ QU (RQOUY))

Sescf 7 □□ yey E28 AIMYQ02 8 enwl_B. TL £3 yy. SHE CoueT— bles Alege ly Stibbere pants” SEpyes Jb ConSTRiycl THe Aygohcte □ exe KR. lee £4. jn) THT THE. LBVTER STATES beRa/ harsAa 4p | SERW CEN ATEN deve BER _ □□□ , AWsa0ER uve NAtE MpyZbER XZ, F ENG 1nd

LEER. CPpo3'Tiin) Ale» GEIL THE KPUCATI OF- THE AUWSLOER !INueé afte. GEE lara ket TET Ne. 19 Aét lnaieshofe (eter pT watiy /2/03/30 4s oppose □□ ple An AK ) YK vices} Tbés2 / A Dye fd. fd Sf Le iS 2 JETER 4057 □ □□ irs. Toh oO IaATEL /B2L/T Ld. ») a Mferey Nusoa rages The SiLy FE Inaskhal’ Serle PIG MAI LPTE Fen gn iL Micats Yt Lett Fas len Te Conyplomat te Stemme yas 45 _ SCRIBER Late, LPs Failte ahem □□□ Styx G) nodlhs AFTEn tHe Legal dug ay. AWSIER And LIAS Strmanqte] iL vy PER □□□ THe IyuisShuict: Coutts’ bd istacd7on,

LL MVETHED. □□□ RCT Court & enon | SPFES, Laon _prursi1anl TB FA FCP le S5la) Y, IVUSCA AmousTTe TR A_ kok.” Liebe R THE L cages par □□□□ NE7ereminih TAS Cnc lt§& Kewl or sek ation sR Cur, LECTUS Aap col Ki Laer | □□□ □ jitieis tEF2. A Oven SH Daren’ (see feThella □ LoniTe,

Tout” F2rsT Doser Gln ee Chit pIQEYUNS LOLA /_sepgalacadi Di af tHE V>/SThiicT~ □□ NiscZ epi t) AR ELOOG APIECE TD □□□ IY Dito per heFault ity hr Est moto - L208) tur QL DIST uc Count Fira Chen CesTia 1g ts, Ob) 4Y □□ GTS LPIA oF DeFAu/tncflon sates AY AZ, CS/x moxsffls. APFIER ThE eer 27, ~ hue DATE To ADSLOErR © Rg. CM fa by Kile jo _ _ □

Sh

hrconw Fea. Nusteicf Couat Ali 7s Onthen eMER Oo MM, pel Z ROR/ pels uipon tHe Wiad Court MCLE oF He Syotenun Count _ bef: D198. p22 CAST R TO dt, Lhwiléh » ZA □□□ □□ SOUS, 375, 3 S/- 83 (Q003) THs may Re laters 1m total cA]igory WHE ORK AF HE Couey Inétiins $4ose" cols sutride (36E FRCP Rule GAC) “am Ekeon”

0. isSTtF allegerly Haver B&H PEPADS oF Gyual pacTeTind ann Wue probes OF Cito Loe, ~Re2pErR MeCTo0 Foe dexgmeatt AyanisT~ Owed) oF CULL) WSCFRDANE Haver BEE Sety6tTérs TS oenip! 102 CONFNET Lori THE FRCP Rule. Compfne, Gl oeaf

Fi Supp, at 610, 6/7 m3 (Eid, Va, 2064) )

UD Stent Loueth Inay 27.303) Rerrn) she Ferera! or - Syetéme- Count~ Cae Anes Be ewoe AS otto” pacécémréwee, (se& ~Plaia □□□□□□ Yoilex ~ Ofna, S0F lS: 726 AT 133-837 93 (See Adsa, delle STRTES □

+) lth Euly, 57 F838 Mle, Mal Clr, □□□□□□ BEL Yank ERAR 1) FRET OCOMU EAE 1D _ Rstever~ Cours renal F au/t- STO) as aw Exangle oF CouaT tllegts, NET-LEACKH 11s. AliPeelTy By Coetnly hy Wolafnsg bra, Chteeim Fébenal Kules Fon Con] SoU EIOIS, Bule 55a) hex Default dusymernT da He Bays oF OES BOE OL oes

etel Kemorelng LLL, 18 F Sippy, □□ AO ER va doy).

Lederer Cel onyplanl ~useseara TS OUSC VIE3_ 18 pa2eq uioicpa] ly AAPPET □□ CoudrS Rn&fezmng Te MOI PRpER Itelon 16 He/> Owed) CAP DEFER DMITR 10) REFIT, fEECHUSE._ TE IAD 80 lwOU/S □□□ THE

ARyiws ExEnyWent Fora. hasihty AnbJor j - sling tation) FoR Summpay Higmerst Kegan TS” Hla SFE, ee

| Ps

TE KRECOWE/ DER. OR Vrobi Fy UP werua] oF mofron feeteSitthT-~TEFREP 55a) 010 He RSIs OF FRCP Rule □ RCL), apeticubaehe Lotefe Iénwial □□ INTPow Fan WeFauttHtbgmerH 1s fooT — SYQOSTED. By ETBEUSHEDS □□□ U/AIRER Feral Kees Pag Owl FuAE ats, Foul A= ASUS¢+A,. am) E220? □□□ yetaer Couct Onsen exzénes May 17 SERVE TE Can05fielie J on Fem Bole Y Cepacerumg SERIE OF □□□ [ara tiendT sins. anions , dinin Fiile CAIDAS SEV CE OF “bla FOR RetaulttibemaT, upoad RéFe0nanT~ WA Fast Cass boail, Cara Xd Lond, Sir fae Ae) fader Fron THE Nay 27 202) ORRER 4s Sow WAT UebkER Kile LD □□ LIMAT FereoT □ cathtory Fon (eheP As Tots Couet edouls — bgtm_Avai/as ey paso TB THE Stee Oreeit Airey saustucHog, ATA Fitgal—— FRem THs Coual Is eveTinlly Benen, (ettelle, Supe, ) (ste also," ASfite Lb S., BEL BECP RACTERS 241 i002 OF

Dsrar Covars “tay 1]202) bs we saygpodien’ By EsThalsthes Law | AS fHLESC RED FRCP 55 (a), Y,

Derexeehs uo) Stee Cowal Kewbens Final ORNKER. on) Cel □ OmplanT- BecausE feottriral ReFault— _A85ies Ans Claings Have Megerh, OLE I fa ShIF$ ComplanT” due 72 lty— _ Order eTérex May 27,222) Renny allege ptepen Kale 55ta) Mofo, | Mame 37303! Bespertti, Susmitieds, Te Bethel Hal) Prose ABSSTIT Hifrey Gaver] Gaepthiav Fz (Biewroa In, Wear, &y SOY Route Be Leerty Yrar — — &itamulle, NY) 4as¥2_ bao York, MM

cop

sv

eo cat so 9 Ok ana REED . 2 8 NE IG EP, ' ge na = . tf wivaiol DM aay 3 gis » & a i = □ o ia ae, . = a. i ve e □ “in

. — 2YMsa 3 = S Ys Vv ge.

XY ‘ x) x 0 is . 9 i Sed Be eC Zz : ay a . my oS) |. = S © 28 | (-- WN oO Ee “~_|.

tv 2 hat ape o s : 9 & . oe □□ □□ >

asa =x 5 □□ i zi i Ly oO = 58 O nS : Gah Ss

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (the “Motion”), (Dkt. No. 156), is denied.

“Properly applied[,] Rule 60(b) strikes a balance between serving the ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments.” Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). “In other words[,] it should be broadly construed to do substantial justice, yet final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief available only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances, and relief under the rule is discretionary.” Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). In other words, “[t]he movant must adduce ‘highly convincing material’ in support of the motion.” Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco Bank, No. 17-CV-2934, 2019 WL 498253, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2019) (quoting United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir. 1977)), aff’d, 798 F. App’x 682 (2d Cir. 2019). In light of this high bar, “[r]elief under Rule 60(b) is generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). This is not one of those circumstances.

The Court agrees with Defendants’ reading of Plaintiff’s Motion, namely that Plaintiff has failed to identify “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, 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 Defs.’ Mem. 3–4.) Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s prior order fails to rely on “established federal or supreme court law and must be viewed as without precedence.” (Mot. at 5.) That the Court issued an order via memo endorsement is not incorrect or legally insufficient. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that the Court’s decision and the reasoning by which it arrived at that conclusion—namely, whether Walsh was, in fact served—fails to identify specific facts or law that show it to be demonstrably incorrect. In other words, Plaintiff fails to show that Walsh was in fact served appropriately, nor does he cite binding case law showing that the Court misapplied the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion (Dkt. No. 156), and send Plaintiff a copy of this decision.

Date: 6/24/2022