Case Name: Norma Evans GADSDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, J. Erik Sandstedt, Esq., John Kehoe, Rochelle Feder Hansen, Esq., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-18
Citations: 381 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 09-4577-cv
Parties: Norma Evans GADSDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, J. Erik Sandst-edt, Esq., John Kehoe, Rochelle Feder Hansen, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Norma Evans GADSDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, J. Erik Sandst-edt, Esq., John Kehoe, Rochelle Feder Hansen, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-4577-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 18, 2010.
Norma Evans-Gadsden, pro se, Mount Vernon, NY, for Appellant.
John P. Keil, Rebecca G. Fischer, Colla-zo Florentino & Keil LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Norma Evans-Gadsden, pro se, appeals the district court's post-judgment order denying her motion for reconsideration of a June 2007 order of the district court. That June 2007 order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Evans-Gadsden's cross-motion for summary judgment. Evans-Gadsden has also filed a motion with this Court, asking us to compel defendants to answer an interrogatory.
This Court reviews rulings on Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. See Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998). "A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." Id.
Here, the district court correctly determined that Evans-Gadsden's motion for reconsideration, alleging that her adversary had "perpetrated fraud and forgery during the discovery phase of [the] litigation," was untimely. The motion was brought more than two years after the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c); Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir.2000) (holding the one-year limitations period under Rule 60(c) is "absolute"); see also King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that appeal does not toll the one-year limitations period for filing a Rule 60(b) motion).
We have considered all of Evans-Gadsden's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED and the motion is DENIED.