prejudgment interest but failed to fix and calculate such interest. The Court finds that Rule 60(b) provides the appropriate vehicle for doing so in this case.” Am. Underground Eng’g, Inc. v. City of Syracuse, 5:00-CV-278 FJS/DEP, 2012 WL 3202853, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012). As described above, a party proceeding under one of the first three reasons under Rule 60(b) must move within a “reasonable time,” not to exceed one year after the judgment at issue. “The one-year limitation period for Rule 60(b) motions is ‘absolute.’ ” Martha Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham Ctr. of Contemporary Dance, Inc., 466 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir.2000)); see also King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, the renewed motion to correct the
holding that aedpas oneyear period of limitations does not support a delay of filing of habeas petition by capital defendant holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim holding that appeal of a judgment adverse to the plaintiff does not toll the oneyear limitations period for filing a rule 60b3 mo tion on the ground of fraud holding for the same reason that motion for appointment of counsel does not toll the period for filing a federal habeas petition