Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 649

ORDER granting 647 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. So ordered. Responses due by 10/21/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/23/2016) (lmb)

.
•
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 647

Filed 09/22/16

P ~~~ f =--::::--=:::-::-----~
l o~ 2

/DJ~©~ aw ~rm

lffi ~p 232016 ; lJdJ
JUDGE SW CHAi\fiBERS
EET
ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

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

LAW DEPARTMENT
I00 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY I 0007

September 22, 2016
BYECF

Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

USDC SDNY
DOCUivIENT
ELECTRONICA.LLY FILED
DOC #:~--,e:~.-rt-r-r~

DATE FILED:
Re: Schoolcraftv. City of New York, 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, representing the motion respondent City of New York (the "City"), in
connection with the above-captioned matter. I write to advise the Court of two additional
reasons for the adjournment requested in the City's letter of September 20, 2016 that have arisen
since the letter was filed.
First, since that letter was filed the undersigned counsel has been diagnosed with
diverticulitis, a severe infection of the intestinal tract. This condition and its treatment, so far
involving two doctor' s visits and two different antibiotics, makes meeting the current deadline of
September 28, 20 I 6 even more burdensome. In addition, a physician has recommended the
avoidance of significant stress until the infection is overcome, but the current deadline, in
conjunction with other pressing matters, imposes such stress.
Second, Judith Bronsther has advised the City that she is unavailable until October I 2,
2016, due to other matters, to provide further information to assist in responding to plaintiff's
belated arguments about the factual summaries compiled by Ms. Bronsther. Therefore under the
current deadline the City is unable to respond in full to those arguments, although the City could
have responded had the arguments been raised in a timely fashion .

..
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 647 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2
Sweet, J.
September 22, 2016
Page 2
For these additional reasons the City renews its request for adjournment of the response
deadline to October 21, 2016.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

Isl
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc: All counsel by ECF