Shekhem El v. Hiller

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Mi Vi O E N D O RS E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Yashua Shekhem } _ 24 Civ. 00730 (KMK) ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION Vv. ) BGEIVE)| Amanda Hiller, Acting Commissioner and General ) □□□ Counsel for New York State Department of Taxation ) APR 24 2005 | and Finance (NYSDTF); Josh Russell, employee, ) I unknown title, NYSDTF; and New York State ) # Department of Taxation and Finance (NYSDTF), ) P RO S F O C □ Defendants, ) manne neers) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the accompanying Memorandum of law, dated April 21, 2025, the Affirmation of Yashua Shekhem El, dated April 21, 2025 and accompanying exhibits thereto, and all prior pleadings and proceedings herein, Plaintiff, Yashua Shekhem El [a/k/a Yashua Shekhem El Bey], will move this Court, before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at the United States Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York 10601, for an Order for Relief from the Judgment, dated March 25, 2024 (Dkt. No. 87), as to the Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 86) pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) and (4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”), or in the alternative, to Alter or Amend the Judgment, dated March 24, 2025(Dkt. No. 87), as to the Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 86) pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.P., and as to such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rule T(E), oral argument shall be on a date and at a time designated by the Court. Dated: April 21, 2025 New York, New York 3 Z a y- ashua Shekhem El, Plaintiff Pro Se Citizen of the U.S.A.

To: Letitia James, State Attorney General AAG Noam Lerer, Esq., and James Brennan Cooney, Esq., New York State Office of the Attorney General 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, (see Dkt. No. 88), is denied. The standard for such motions is strict and should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided. See Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 118 n.94 (2d Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 142 Ct. 1112 (2022). “A motion for reconsideration should be . granted only when the [movant] identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or tl need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Alvarez v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-5464, 2017 WL 603342 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017). Here, Plaintiff has not done so, but has instead merely repeated the arguments made in respon: to the motion. SO ORDERED. sgh

4/22/25