Wright v. Doe et al
Filing
57
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(A). Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 4/12/17. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail)(alh, )
lJNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAMEL WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
-against-
STIPULATION AND
ORDER OF
DISCONTINUANCE
PURSUANT TO RULE
41(A)
14-CV-1041
ROWLAND POTTER, et al,
Defendants.
DNH/TWD
IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned, the
attorneys for plaintiff Shamel Wright and defendants Sgt. Rowland Potter and Sgt Michael
Barkman, parties to the above entitled-action, that, whereas no party hereto is an infant or
incompetent person for whom a committee has been appointed, and no person not a party has an
interest in the subject matter of the action, the above-entitled action be and the same hereby is settled
on the particular circumstances of this case, on the following terms and conditions, which it is agreed
are of and shall have no legal precedential value in any other case either between the parties to this
case or any other parties:
1.
Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff discontinues
this action with prejudice and without damages, costs, interest, or attorneys' fees, under the
conditions described in Paragraph 5 of this agreement, as against defendants Sgt. Rowland Potter and
Sgt. Michael Barkman, and discharges and releases defendants Sgt. Rowland Potter and Sgt. Michael
Barkman and the State of New York, including its agencies, subdivisions, employees, private
contractors or assignees, of any and all claims, demands, or causes of actions, known or unknown,
now existing or hereafter arising, whether presently asserted or not, which relate in any way to the
subject matter of this action, which relates to an incident on August 30, 2013, and further agrees to
discontinue and/or not to commence or to pursue in any court, arbitration or administrative
proceeding, any litigation, appeal or claims against the defendants and others released hereby
pertaining to the underlying facts, circumstances or incidents that gave rise to the aforementioned
action, or any results of the aforementioned facts, circumstances or incidents that gave rise to the
aforementioned actions, or any results of the aforementioned facts, circumstances or incidents.
2.
This action is hereby discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 l(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.
The parties agree that no provision of this settlement shall be interpreted to be an
acknowledgment of the validity of any of the allegations or claims that have been made in the action.
4.
This settlement does not constitute a determination of, or admission by any party to
any underlying allegations, facts or merits of their respective positions. The settlement of this action
is limited to the circumstances in this case alone and shall not be given effect beyond the specific
provisions stipulated to. This settlement does not form and shall not be claimed as any precedent for,
or an agreement by the parties to any generally applicable policy or procedure in the future.
5.
Following the execution of this stipulation, and it being ordered by the Court,
defendants shall pay to plaintiff the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) in full settlement of
any and all claims. The check shall be made payable directly to Plaintiff "Shamel Wright" and mailed
2
to 1 Grove Place, 1st Floor, Schenectady New York 12307. The above amount shall constitute all
sums to which Plaintiff is entitled, including but not limited to damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
6.
Payment of the amount specified in paragraph 5 is conditioned on the approval of all
appropriate state officials in accordance with the provisions for indemnification under section 17 of
the New York Public Officers Law, and upon plaintiffs signing and returning a "Standard Voucher"
which will be mailed to him by agents of the defendants responsible for the administrative
processing of the settlement paperwork.
7.
Payment of the amount referenced in paragraph 5 will be made within one hundred
and twenty (120) days after the approval of this stipulation by the Court and receipt by defendant's
counsel of a copy of the so-ordered stipulation, unless the provisions of Chapter 62 of the Laws of
2001 apply to the plaintiff and the payment hereunder constitutes "funds of a convicted person"
under the Son of Sam Law, in which event, the one hundred and twenty ( 120) day payment period
shall be extended by an additional thirty (30) days to allow for compliance with that law.
8.
In the event that the terms of paragraph 6 are satisfied, but payment is not made
within the 120 day period set forth in paragraph 7, interest shall begin to accrue on the outstanding
principal balance at the statutory rate on the 121 st day after court approval or the 151 st day after court
approval if the provisions of Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2001 apply to plaintiff.
9.
This stipulation shall be null and void if the approvals referred to in paragraph 6 are
not obtained, and these actions shall then be placed back on the active docket without prejudice.
3
l 0.
Plaintiff represents and warrants that he is not a Medicare recipient, that he has never
been on Medicare or Social Security Disability, that no conditional payments have been made by
Medicare, and that he does not expect to be a Medicare recipient within the next 30 months.
11.
The foregoing constitutes the entire agreement of the parties.
Dated:
Oren
of Zachary C. Oren, Esq.
for Plaintiff
Rutger Street
Utica, NY 13501
570-441-8818
Dated:
New York
2017
~-;--.L·-----•
ERlC
SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for the Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York l
By:
Oriana
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
Bar Roll No. 519351
Telephone: 518-77 6-2610
Email: oriana.carravetta@ag.ny.gov
~=----··-·
4
April 12, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?