Alicea v. The City of New York et al

Filing 128

ORDER granting 127 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 7/8/2022) (vfr)

Case 1:16-cv-07347-LAP Document 127 Filed 07/08/22 Page 1 of 2

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

LAW DEPARTMENT

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10007

MARY K. SHERWOOD
Assistant Corporation Counsel
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

July 8, 2022
BY ECF
Honorable Loretta A. Preska
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:

Dave Alicea v. The City of New York, et al.,
16 Civ. 7347 (LAP)

Your Honor:
I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Honorable Sylvia O. HindsRadix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for defendant the City of New York
and Correction Officer Dorothy Harrison (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter.
Defendants write to respectfully request the Court hold the deadline to submit the Joint Pretrial
Order in abeyance, including the internal deadlines, for reasons stated herein. Plaintiff does not
consent to this request.
By way of background, on Wednesday, June 29, 2022, the undersigned was assigned to the
above-referenced matter. In the course of familiarizing myself with the case and preparing
Defendants’ portion of the Joint Pretrial Order, on July 1, 2022, the undersigned requested
documents from the Office of the Comptroller for the City of New York. On July 5, 2022, the
undersigned received these documents, which included the General Release signed by Plaintiff on
February 12, 2014 related to the settlement of an incident that occurred on July 17, 2013. In the
General Release, Plaintiff expressly released “the City of New York, and all past and present
officers, … employees, …, and entities represented and/or indemnified by the City of New
York…from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, …and demands whatsoever, known or
unknown, which RELEASOR had, now has or hereafter can, shall, or may have against the
RELEASEES for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing that occurred through the date
of this Release.” (General Release re: NYC Comptroller Claim No. 2013PI019830, annexed hereto
as Exhibit “A”). Plaintiff was represented in that matter by the law firm of Ebanks & Sattler, LLP
and resolved the matter with the Office of the Comptroller in consideration of $4,000 and the
General Release.
It is Defendants’ position that the February 12, 2014 General Release unquestionably bars
the instant action, which occurred on August 24, 2013. During discovery, although Plaintiff was

Case 1:16-cv-07347-LAP Document 127 Filed 07/08/22 Page 2 of 2

not specifically asked whether he had entered into any previous settlements with the Office of the
Comptroller, he did not otherwise disclose this information. There is no question, however, that
Plaintiff was aware of the significance of the February 12, 2014 General Release. In fact, in June
2016, approximately two months 1 before he filed the original complaint in this action, Plaintiff
sent a letter to the Office of the Comptroller, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law
(“FOIL”), seeking a copy of the General Release he signed in connection with the resolution of
his 2013 claim (NYC Comptroller Claim No. 2013PI019830). (Plaintiff’s June 16, 2016 letter to
“Mr. Stringer,” annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”).
In an effort to avoid motion practice, Defendants sent the General Release to Plaintiff’s
counsel, along with supplemental matter documents on July 8, 2022, and requested that they
withdraw this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that they intend to discuss this issue with
their client but have not yet been able to do.
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request the Court hold the deadline to submit the
Joint Pretrial Order in abeyance, including the internal deadlines, pending the resolution of the
applicability of the 2014 General Release to this matter. In the event that Plaintiff does not agree
to withdraw this action, with prejudice, Defendants will expeditiously submit a proposed briefing
schedule for their anticipated motion.
Thank you for your consideration herein.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 8, 2022
New York, New York

cc:

Respectfully submitted,
Mary K. Sherwood
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division

All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge

1

While Plaintiff’s Complaint was docketed on September 20, 2016, at the Pre-Motion Conference
dated February 23, 2017, Plaintiff claimed that he actually filed his Complaint on August 17, 2016.
(Dkt. No. 25, at 3:6–9). Thus, Plaintiff sent the FOIL request to the Office of the Comptroller only
two months prior to initiating this action.