The following background is drawn from the Petition, the allegations of which “are assumed to be true for the purposes of this” Report and Recommendation, the exhibits to the Petition, and public records of which the Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Brewer v. Lee, No. 16 Civ. 4051 (RRM), 2019 WL 1384074, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019);see Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[C]ourts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts, . . . not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.”); Johnson v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 8195 (GHW), 2017 WL 2312924, at *3 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2017) (on motion to dismiss, taking judicial notice of court order in another proceeding); Quizhpe v. Superintendent of E. Corr. Facility, No. 21 Civ. 1709 (KMK) (PED), 2 2022 WL 5202275, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022), adopted by, 2022 WL 5197319 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2022).

Although the time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending tolls the one-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2), the filing of a state petition for writ of habeas corpus after the limitations period has already run does not re-start the one-year limitations period. See Fernandez v. Artuz, 402 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (a state petition does not toll the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), unless petition is 'pending' [in state court] during the tolling period"); Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (Section 2244(d)(2) "excludes time during which properly filed state relief application are pending, but does not reset the date from which the one-year statute of limitations begins to run"); Brewer v. Lee, No. 16-CV-4051 (RRM), 2019 WL 1384074, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019) (Where post-conviction motions were filed after the one year limitations period had lapsed, they did not toll the limitations period.) As such, the 2009 petition in state court could not and did not toll the already lapsed limitations period.