Handschu, et al v. Special Serv. Div., et al

Filing 378

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER#97220: In these circumstances, the following questions arise: (1) Do Corporation Counsel contend that they were under no obligation whatsoever to inform Class counsel and the Court that as of April 13, 2007 Interim Order 47 was no longer in effect, while conducting the litigation as if it was? (2) If Corporation Counsel makes the contention referred to in Question I, upon what factual circumstances, practices or procedures, rules or legal authorities, or other source s do they rely? (3) Was any consideration given by the Corporation Counsel or other NYPD or City officers or employees as to whether Class Counsel and the Court should have been told at the time that Interim Order 22 had replaced Interim Order 47 in April 2007, or did that non-disclosure simply occur without consideration or discussion?.(4)If consideration was given or discussions held, what were the details? (The Court does not at the present see the need to reopen the record for the presentati on of further affidavits or evidentiary material; Corporation Counsel may address these inquires at the oral argument in the form of representations made as an officer of the Court)While these questions are posed to counsel for one side or the other, counsel for both parties are free to comment upon any of them at the hearing. The foregoing is Ordered. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 3/13/09) (js) Modified on 3/16/2009 (mro).