Taylor v. Trigeno et al

Filing 230

ORDER granting 229 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application granted. Defendants City of New York and NYCDOC Officer Quayyum (the "City Defendants") are directed to file their anticipated motion for summary judgment no l ater than June 6, 2022. Plaintiff's opposition is due no later than August 8, 2022. The City Defendants' reply, if any, is due two weeks following the date of service of Plaintiff's "opposition. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 229. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/24/2022) (rro)

MEMORANDUM ENDORSED

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 5/24/2022

AMANDA M. ROLON
Assistant Corporation Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007

May 23, 2022
VIA ECF
Honorable Gregory H. Woods
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Roy Taylor v. NYPD Officer Trigeno, et al., 16 Civ.1143 (GHW)

Your Honor:
I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Hon. Sylvia O. HindsRadix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, representing defendants City of New York
and NYCDOC Officer Quayyum in the above-referenced matter (hereinafter “City defendants”).
City defendants write to respectfully request a fourteen-day enlargement of time, from May 23,
2022 until June 6, 2022, to file their motion for summary judgment, as well as a corresponding
enlargement of the subsequent briefing deadlines as outlined herein. This is the second1 request
for an extension of City defendants’ time to file their motion for summary judgment, and is made
without plaintiff’s consent because plaintiff was released from NYC Department of Correction
custody; and to date, has not provided his updated contact information. However, defendants
respectfully submit that plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way if Your Honor is inclined to
grant this request.
This morning, I learned that my supervisor had a death in her family and therefore,
she is unable to review the instant motion. As such, an enlargement of time is needed so that this
motion can be reviewed by another supervisor in the Special Federal Litigation division and then
finalized by the undersigned.

1

On April 27, 2022, this Court granted City defendants’ first request for an enlargement of time to file their
motion for summary judgment sought for the purpose of gathering affidavits in support of their motion. (ECF
No. 226.)

Accordingly, City defendants respectfully request a brief enlargement of time, from
May 23, 2022 until June 6, 2022, to file their anticipated motion for summary judgment, as well
as a corresponding enlargement of plaintiff’s opposition deadline from July 25, 2022 until August
8, 2022, and defendants’ reply deadline until two weeks after receipt of plaintiff’s opposition.
City defendants thank the Court for its attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Amanda Rolon
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL2
Roy Taylor, Plaintiff Pro Se
B&C No. 3491804923
Anna M. Kross Center
18-18 Hazen Street
East Elmhurst, NY 11370

Application granted. Defendants City of New York and NYCDOC Officer Quayyum (the “City
Defendants”) are directed to file their anticipated motion for summary judgment no later than June 6, 2022.
Plaintiff’s opposition is due no later than August 8, 2022. The City Defendants’ reply, if any, is due two
weeks following the date of service of Plaintiff’s opposition.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 229.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2022
New York, New York

_____________________________________

GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2

Plaintiff was released from New York City Department of Correction custody on May 20, 2022. To date, plaintiff
has not provided his updated contact information.

2