Neroni v. Becker et al

Filing 54

ORDER - That Neroni's motion (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/10/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
FREDERICK J. NERONI,
Plaintiff,

3:12-cv-1226
(GLS/DEP)

v.
CARL F. BECKER et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
ORDER
On April 24, 2017, plaintiff pro se Frederick J. Neroni moved
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) for an order vacating the court’s previous
award of attorney’s fees. (Dkt. No. 52.) In his submission, Neroni also
“demand[s]” that he be permitted to e-file (and further “demand[s] a
response to [his] request within a week of receipt”), or, if not permitted to efile, he makes additional “demand[s]” that would afford him extra time to
make future filings. (Id., Attach. 1 at 1.) In support of his motion for relief
from the order and judgment, Neroni relies exclusively on what he
perceives to be changes in decisional law since the court awarded fees in
September 2013 as the basis of his request; he makes no attempt,
however, to show how or why the order and judgment is void under Rule

60(b)(4). (Dkt. No. 52 at 3-5.)
Having failed to offer any reason as to why the order and judgment is
“void,” Neroni’s argument appears to fall in the catch-all of Rule 60(b)(6),
which permits the court to grant relief for “any . . . reason that justifies
relief” not covered by a different provision of Rule 60(b). “‘[A]s a general
matter, a mere change in decisional law does not constitute an
‘extraordinary circumstance’ for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(6),’ and ‘the
interest in finality outweighs’ the losing party’s concern ‘that justice was not
done.’” Tapper v. Hearn, 833 F.3d 166, 172 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting
Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Terrorist
Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 741 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2013)). The motion,
which seeks relief related to an issue decided more three and one-half
years ago, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), is therefore denied. Consequently, Neroni’s
“demand” that he be permitted to e-file or received extra time for filing by
mail is denied as moot inasmuch as this matter is closed and no further
filings are necessary.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Neroni’s motion (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED; and it is
further
2

ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to Neroni by
certified mail and to defendants in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 10, 2017
Albany, New York

3