Taylor v. Trigeno et al

Filing 278

ORDER denying 277 Motion to Vacate 277 MOTION to Vacate 276 Order. Plaintiff'smotion to vacate the December 9, 2022 order is denied. Because Plaintiff represents that he has not received the reply, the City Defendant is directed to again serve its reply and the eight unpublished decisions referenced in the reply upon Plaintiff, and to file proof of service by no later than February 8, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 277 and to mail a copy of this order by first-class mail to the plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/1/23) (yv)

Case 1:16-cv-01143-GHW Document 278 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ROY TAYLOR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
NYPD OFFICER ALYSSA TRIGENO,
:
NYPD SGT. MICHAEL DUNLAVEY,
:
RIKERS C.O. QUAYYUM, and CITY OF
:
NEW YORK,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 2/1/2023

1:16-cv-01143-GHW
ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff has filed a motion to vacate the Court’s December 9, 2022 order, which denied
Plaintiff’s request for the entry of default judgment against Defendants. See Dkt. No. 276 (the
“Order”); Dkt. No. 277 (the “Motion”). In the Order, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that
Defendants had “defaulted” because Defendants had not filed a reply in support of a motion to
dismiss by the November 18, 2022 deadline. As the Court noted in its Order, the City Defendant 1
timely filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on November 18, 2022.
In the Motion, Plaintiff asserts again that he has not received a reply brief from Defendants,
and Plaintiff further asserts that ex parte communications have taken place between the Court and
Defendants. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions that ex parte communications have taken place
between the Court and the City Defendant, the Court received the City Defendant’s reply because
the reply was publicly filed on the docket of this case. See Dkt. No. 274. The City Defendant also

1 The City Defendant filed the motion to dismiss at issue. See Dkt. No. 265. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s
request for default judgment against “Defendants”, due to an alleged failure to timely file a reply in support of the
motion to dismiss, to apply only to the City Defendant.

Case 1:16-cv-01143-GHW Document 278 Filed 02/01/23 Page 2 of 2

publicly filed a declaration of service stating that the reply had been mailed to Plaintiff on the docket
of this case. Id. at 8. It appears that Plaintiff still had not received the reply as of December 24,
2022, the date that appears on Plaintiff’s Motion. Nonetheless, because the City Defendant filed its
reply by the November 18, 2022 deadline and represented that the reply was served on Plaintiff, the
Court again declines to enter default judgment against the City Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion to vacate the December 9, 2022 order is denied.
Because Plaintiff represents that he has not received the reply, the City Defendant is directed
to again serve its reply and the eight unpublished decisions referenced in the reply upon Plaintiff,
and to file proof of service by no later than February 8, 2023.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 277 and to mail
a copy of this order by first-class mail to the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2023
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2