Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation

S.D. New York

Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation

DecidedJanuary 2, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-09913

StatusUnknown

This text of Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation (Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA IN NEW YORK, Plaintiff, 24 Civ. 9913 (PAE) -v- ORDER 834 5TH AVENUE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On December 23, 2024, plaintiff Consulate General of India in New York (the “Consulate General”) filed this action, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Consulate General has the right to build a fire exit between a building it owns at 3 East 64th Street, New York, NY, and an adjacent building. See Dkt. 1 (Complaint). The Consulate General has yet to serve the Summons and Complaint on defendants, or if the Consulate General has done so, it has

not filed proof of such service. The Court is in receipt of a letter from the Consulate General requesting that the Court place “Complainant’s case in entirety” under seal. Dkt. 3. The letter conclusorily asserts that “an overriding interest” in “confidentiality and privacy” supports this application, but it does not explain particular reasons for seeking to file any information under seal—much less the “case in entirety”—as required by Rule 4.B.2 of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases. See, e.g., Dkt. 3 at 2 (alluding to unspecified “threats” made to the Consulate General “in the past,” which it acknowledges “are not necessarily related to this matter”); see also, e.g., Lugosch v.Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20, 124 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]he First Amendment does secure to the public and to the press a right of access to civil proceedings.”); In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14 Md. 2543 (JMF), 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015). Accordingly, the Court denies the Consulate General’s request without prejudice to its ability to renew it upon compliance with Rule 4.B.2. SO ORDERED.

______________________________ PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge Dated: January 2, 2025 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA IN NEW YORK, Plaintiff, 24 Civ. 9913 (PAE) -v- ORDER 834 5TH AVENUE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On December 23, 2024, plaintiff Consulate General of India in New York (the “Consulate General”) filed this action, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Consulate General has the right to build a fire exit between a building it owns at 3 East 64th Street, New York, NY, and an adjacent building. See Dkt. 1 (Complaint). The Consulate General has yet to serve the Summons and Complaint on defendants, or if the Consulate General has done so, it has

not filed proof of such service. The Court is in receipt of a letter from the Consulate General requesting that the Court place “Complainant’s case in entirety” under seal. Dkt. 3. The letter conclusorily asserts that “an overriding interest” in “confidentiality and privacy” supports this application, but it does not explain particular reasons for seeking to file any information under seal—much less the “case in entirety”—as required by Rule 4.B.2 of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases. See, e.g., Dkt. 3 at 2 (alluding to unspecified “threats” made to the Consulate General “in the past,” which it acknowledges “are not necessarily related to this matter”); see also, e.g., Lugosch v.Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20, 124 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]he First Amendment does secure to the public and to the press a right of access to civil proceedings.”); In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14 Md. 2543 (JMF), 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015). Accordingly, the Court denies the Consulate General’s request without prejudice to its ability to renew it upon compliance with Rule 4.B.2. SO ORDERED.

______________________________ PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge Dated: January 2, 2025 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consulate-general-of-india-in-new-york-v-834-5th-avenue-corporation-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack