In Johnston v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (161 AD2d 288, 555 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept 1990]), plaintiff was awarded damages against defendants Amtrak and Allied Maintenance Corporation, 30% and 70% respectively. When Amtrak sought indemnification from Allied based upon a certain maintenance contract, Allied asserted that such indemnification was barred by GOL Law 5-322.1, to the degree Amtrak had itself been negligent for plaintiff's injuries. Upon renewal, Amtrak raised, for the first time, the applicability of 45 U.S.C. 546(d), for the contention that leases and contracts entered into by Amtrak were governed by the laws of the District of Columbia, which did not have a statute analogous to GOL 5-322.1 so as to bar enforcement of the indemnification agreement. Counsel for Amtrak claimed that he was unaware of the federal statute at the time of the original motion. The First Department found that, among other things, there was no bar to granting renewal upon the federal statute, since a motion for renewal may be based upon law not previously considered, and the excuse for failing to raise it in the first instance was valid.