Harris v. State of New York

Background

Evan Harris moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s April 21, 2022, order. That order extended the time for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Harris’s Second Amended Complaint until May 16, 2022.

Harris argued that the court had mistakenly included the State of New York in the extension because the State’s counsel had not signed the stipulation. The stipulation was executed by Harris, the Office of the New York State Comptroller, Lawrence Schantz, and Robert Tambini. The State opposed Harris’s motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the motion was untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires a motion for reconsideration of an order deciding a motion to be served within 14 days after the order is entered. Harris filed his motion on June 16, 2022—56 days after the April 21 order and 31 days after the State filed its third motion to dismiss under the extension.

The court alternatively addressed the substance of the motion. It explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court concluded that Harris had not identified controlling law or factual material that it had overlooked and that could reasonably change the April 21 order.

The court also rejected the argument that the State’s failure to execute the stipulation nullified the April 21 order. The court read the stipulation’s statement that the deadline was extended for “all defendants” as covering the State as well.

Disposition

Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Harris’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in Harris’s Second Amended Complaint.