Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 431

LETTER REPLY to Response to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H Scheiner dated April 7, 2015 re: 429 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Make Pre-Trial Submissions After a Ruling on Summary Judgment and to Adjourn the Trial Date addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated April 6, 2015. . Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), New York City Police Department, Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Adrian Schoolcraft, The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, in his Official Capacity). (Scheiner, Alan)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

April 7, 2015
BY ECF & EMAIL
([e-mail])
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, et al.
10-CV-6005 (RWS)
Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, assigned to represent City Defendants in the above-referenced matter. I write
in brief response to the letter of plaintiff’s counsel of today, submitted in opposition to the
defendants’ request for adjournment, but consenting to a one-week adjournment.
First, to clarify the position of other defendants, counsel for Jamaica Hospital Medical
Center has advised me that his client takes no position on the application for adjournment.
Second, plaintiff’s purported reliance on the trial date in this matter was unreasonable in
light of the pendency not only of the summary judgment motions (including plaintiffs’ own
motion), but the City defendants’ application of March 20 for an adjournment of the trial date.
The March 20 application was never ruled upon and accordingly was not denied. Plaintiff made
a summary judgment motion which in the normal course implies plaintiff’s own intent that it
should be decided before trial. The plaintiff should have considered that the defendants’ March
20 application could yet be granted, if summary judgment was not decided in time to allow for
pre-trial submissions.
With due regard to the goal of the speedy resolution of disputes, plaintiff has no vested
right in a particular trial date, which is subject to the Court’s discretion, the rights of other
parties, and the interests of justice. For the reasons set forth previously, the interests of justice
and the avoidance of undue prejudice call for an adjournment, which will further the just and
efficient conclusion of this matter.

The City defendants thank the Court for its time and attention to these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

Nathaniel Smith (By E-Mail)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregory John Radomisli (By E-Mail)
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
Brian Lee (By E-Mail)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys for Dr. Isak Isakov
Matthew Koster (By E-Mail)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Lillian Aldana-Bernier
Walter A. Kretz , Jr. (By E-Mail)
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorney for Defendant Mauriello

2