O'Neil v. Provenzano
1:19-cv-05283
S.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Patricia O’Neil, proceeding pro se, sued Daniel Provenzano for defamation and related claims.
- The court entered a default judgment against Provenzano for $222,978 on October 9, 2020.
- Provenzano appealed the judgment, but the appeal was dismissed after he failed to pay the appeal fee.
- O’Neil later attempted to collect on the judgment, alleging that Provenzano used his corporation, Genco Olive Oil Company (“Genco”), to hide assets.
- On January 30, 2025, O’Neil moved to amend the judgment to add Genco as a co-defendant, arguing she was unaware at filing that Genco should have been included.
- The motion was filed over four years after the initial complaint and more than four years after O’Neil allegedly became aware of Genco’s involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amending Judgment Post-Judgment | O’Neil asks to add Genco as co-defendant, citing her status as pro se and lack of awareness | No argument presented by Provenzano (motion unopposed at this stage) | Denied; must first vacate judgment under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) and meet strict standards. |
| Relief under Rule 59(e) | O’Neil did not demonstrate new evidence, law, or clear error; argues lack of knowledge and pro se status | N/A | Denied; does not meet Rule 59(e) strict standard. |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or (6) | O’Neil claims effective assistance issues with pro se clinic, lack of knowledge | N/A | Denied; motion time-barred under 60(b)(1); no extraordinary circumstances under 60(b)(6). |
| Ineffective Assistance of Pro Se Assistance | O’Neil argues reliance on pro se assistance led to omission | N/A | Denied; no attorney-client relationship, no manifest injustice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (strict standard for Rule 59(e) reconsideration motions)
- Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court discretion on reconsideration)
- S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b) standards for relief from judgment)
- Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of NY, 443 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2006) (timeliness requirements for Rule 60(b) motions)