Tardif v. City of New York et al

Filing 572

ORDER: granting 552 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. In light of the factors set forth in, the execution of judgment without bond or other security is stayed for 30 days to allow the City to provide the following:1) Evidence that there are sufficient funds to pay the judgment; and 2) Any additional information that would help the Court balance the factors. In light of Plaintiff's consent, Defendant's request to extend the briefing schedule for its post-trial motions by tw o weeks is granted. No further extensions of the briefing schedule will be granted. Defendant must file its memorandum of law in support by August 15, 2022; Plaintiff must file her memorandum of law in opposition by September 29, 2022; and, if Defendant wishes to file a reply, it must do so by October 31, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 8/01/2022) (ama)

Case 1:13-cv-04056-KMW-KNF Document 572
552 Filed 08/01/22
07/28/22 Page 1 of 2

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

HANNAH V. FADDIS
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

July 28, 2022
By ECF
Honorable Kimba M. Wood
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:
Your Honor:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 8/1/22

Mary Tardif v. City of New York, et al.,
No. 13 CV 4056 (KMW) (KNF)

MEMO ENDORSED

I am one of the attorneys assigned to represent defendant the City of New York in the
above-referenced matter. Defendant writes to respectfully request that the Court: 1) stay execution
of judgment without bond or other security (see, ECF No. 551); and 2) enlarge the briefing
schedule on
post-trial motions for two weeks. Plaintiff consents to the request to
enlarge the briefing schedule and has not taken a position regarding waiver of a bond or security.
The City of New York has the means to satisfy the judgment, an efficient process for
making payment, and a bond would be a waste of public resources. Accordingly, the Court should
waive the requirement that the defendant post a bond or other security. Courts in this circuit
consider five factors when deciding whether to waive the bond or security requirement under Rule
62(b): (1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time required to obtain a
judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of confidence that the district court has in
the availability of funds to pay the judgment; (4) whether the defendant s ability to pay the
judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond would be a waste of money; and (5) whether the
defendant is in such a precarious financial situation that the requirement to post a bond would
place other creditors of the defendant in an insecure position. In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search
Cases, 783 F.3d 414, 417-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (discussing former Rule 62(d));
Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A., No. 19-CV-10023 (KPF), 2020 WL
771522, at *2 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2020) (explaining that courts in this circuit continue to apply
the Nassau County factors to Rule 62(b) motions); see, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. JCTB Inc., No. 18CV-6154 (MAT), 2019 WL 6000997, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2019) (applying Nassau County).
Following these factors, no bond or security should be required in this case. The City of New

Case 1:13-cv-04056-KMW-KNF Document 572
552 Filed 08/01/22
07/28/22 Page 2 of 2

York, as the sole defendant, obviously has the means to satisfy the judgment, an efficient system
for the payment of judgments, and a bond would plainly be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Courts in
this Circuit routinely waive this requirement in cases involving the City. See, e.g., Wright v. City
of N.Y., No. 14-cv-6873 (RJD)(RML) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018); Johnson v. City of N.Y., No. 15
Civ. 6915 (ER), ECF No. 174 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Gem Fin. Serv., Inc. v. City of N.Y., No.
13-cv-1686 (RPK)(RER), Docket Entry dated May 17, 2022 (E.D.N.Y.). Accordingly, defendant
respectfully requests that the Court modify its prior Order and permit a stay of execution of the
judgment without bond or other security.
Defendant also respectfully requests that the Court enlarge the briefing schedule on
post-trial motions by two weeks. This request is made due to scheduling constraints
and to permit defendant adequate time to prepare its motion.1
Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.
Sincerely,
/s/
Hannah V. Faddis
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
CC:

BY ECF
All Counsel of Record

In light of the factors set forth in In Re Nassau County , the execution of judgment without bond or
other security is stayed for 30 days to allow the City to provide the following:
1) Evidence that there are sufficient funds to pay the judgment; and
2) Any additional information that would help the Court balance the In Re Nassau County factors.
In light of Plaintiff’s consent, Defendant’s request to extend the briefing schedule for its post-trial
motions by two weeks is granted. No further extensions of the briefing schedule will be granted.
Defendant must file its memorandum of law in support by August 15, 2022;
Plaintiff must file her memorandum of law in opposition by September 29, 2022;
and, if Defendant wishes to file a reply, it must do so by October 31, 2022.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
New York, NY
August 1, 2022
/s/ Kimba M. Wood
THE HONORABLE KIMBA M. WOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

The undersigned is currently on trial before the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield, in a matter that is
expected to last through August 11, 2022.
2