Feliciano v. City of New York

Opinion

Sige, USDS SDNY ENDORSED 33>. ao Zoe ELECTRONICALLY FILEL Reese” DOC#:_ DATE FILED: _ 4/21/2023 THE City oF NEW YORK HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX LAW DEPARTMENT MARK D. ZUCKERMAN Corporation Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET Senior Counsel NEW YORK, NY 10007 E-mail: mzuckerm@law-nyc.gov Phone: (212) 356-3519 Fax: (212) 788-9776

April 20, 2023 Granted. VIA ECF The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan SO ORDERED. United States District Judge Southern District of New York /s/ Lewis A. Kaplan 500 Pearl St. Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S.D.J New York, N.Y. 10007 Dated: April 21, 2023 Re: Madeline Feliciano, guardian of Nicholas Feliciano v. The City of New York, et. al., 20 Civ. 10033 (MKV) Your Honor: I am a Senior Counsel in the office of the Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, representing defendants City of New York and Mark Peralta in the above-referenced matter. We write with the consent of all parties to respectfully request that the stay of all proceedings which is presently in effect in this case through May 7, 2023 (See Docket 131) be extended through May 26, 2023. The reason for the request is twofold. First, as the Court is aware, there are parallel criminal investigations ongoing in connection with the underlying suicide attempt which gives rise to this civil rights action. Thus, this Court has the discretion to stay a civil case in the interest of justice. See United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (‘Federal courts have deferred civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seemed to require such action,....).' Defendants respectfully request the continued stay due to the pending and parallel criminal investigations.

' Plaintiffs’ counsel have previously indicated that they do not agree that a stay is required by law, but consent to a stay in any event.

Second, the full day settlement conference scheduled for April 12, 2023 before Magistrate Judge Cott had to be adjourned to May 4, 2023 due the Court’s unavailability on April 12, 2023. (See Docket 133) The parties still would like to explore settlement with Magistrate Judge Cott before proceeding to active litigation. The request includes, as with the prior requests for a stay of all proceedings in this case, that the Court continue to adjourn the time for defendants to respond to the complaint to a date to be determined in the future. This is the sixteenth request for the stay to be extended. Thank you for your consideration herein. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mark D. Zuckerman Mark D. Zuckerman Senior Counsel cc: All Counsel (via ECF)