Richards v. City of New York Comptroller

S.D. New York

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 10, 2025·No. 1:20-cv-03348·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALROY D. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, Vv. 20-CV-3348 (RA) CITY OF NEW YORK, SCOTT STRINGER, in ORDER his official capacity as City of New York comptroller, J. PASTORIZA, and D. SAROFF, Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is authorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiffs request to seal the motion to proceed IFP is denied. If Plaintiff still seeks to seal his IFP motion— despite the redactions he has already applied—he must file a motion in accordance with Rule 5 of the Court’s Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases explaining the reasons justifying sealing, including why the request is consistent with the test set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending as ECF No. 182. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2025 New York, New York Ae fo Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

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

ALROY D. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, Vv. 20-CV-3348 (RA) CITY OF NEW YORK, SCOTT STRINGER, in ORDER his official capacity as City of New York comptroller, J. PASTORIZA, and D. SAROFF, Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is authorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiffs request to seal the motion to proceed IFP is denied. If Plaintiff still seeks to seal his IFP motion— despite the redactions he has already applied—he must file a motion in accordance with Rule 5 of the Court’s Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases explaining the reasons justifying sealing, including why the request is consistent with the test set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending as ECF No. 182. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 10, 2025 New York, New York Ae fo Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller (Richards v. City of New York Comptroller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related