supposedly memorialized in the report and other phases of the investigation. When the state court ordered a hearing to determine the report’s authenticity, Pratt promptly withdrew his motion to vacate. Although not pertinent to our ultimate conclusion, we accept the District Court’s factual finding that the police report was forged, that Pratt knew it to be forged, and that Pratt endeavored to mislead the courts. The District Court concluded that, despite the fraudulent nature of Pratt’s state court motion, it still tolled AEDPA’s statute of limitations. (Tr. at 9.) Whether a state court motion based on a fraudulent document is “properly filed” within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2) is a question of law that we review de novo. See Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1606, 152
holding that the threshold question of whether to adopt a doctrine is reviewed de novo holding that whether the period during which a petitioner may pursue certiorari on state collateral motions tolls aedpas statute of limitations is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo