Lopez et al v. City of New York et al

Filing 140

ORDER denying 139 Motion for Reconsideration re 139 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 138 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, to adjourn trial date filed by Luis Linares, City of New York. Because of the Court's C OVID protocols, individual judges do not have control over trial dates. Due to the availability of jurors, the trial date was moved from April 4, 2022 to April 7, 2022. Also, depending on other scheduled trials, the actual trial date might change sl ightly; thus, the parties should be ready on 24-hour notice. Although the Court is sympathetic to a family vacation, this long-delayed trial should proceed. Accordingly, the request for yet another adjournment [dkt. no. 139] is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 3/9/2022) (va)

Case 1:17-cv-00181-LAP Document 139 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 2
140
03/09/22

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

HON. SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

March 8, 2022

CAROLYN K. DEPOIAN
Senior Counsel
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

BY ECF
Honorable Loretta A. Preska
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Suhail Laureano v. City of New York, et ano.
17 CV 181 (LAP)

Your Honor:
This Office represents defendants City of New York and Luis Linares in the
above-referenced action. Defendants write to respectfully move for reconsideration of the
Court’s March 8, 2022 Order, denying defendants request for an adjournment of the trial that
was recently rescheduled from April 4, 2022 until April 7, 2022.
In the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order, trial in this matter was estimated to last only
four days. See Civil Docket Sheet Entry 66. On December 10, 2021, following a request by
plaintiffs’ counsel which was made with defendants’ consent, Your Honor issued an order
rescheduling trial for April 4, 2022. See Civil Docket Sheet Entry 135. The December 10th
Order indicated that April 4, 2022 was the “confirmed trial date” and did not advise the parties
that they were any trials ahead of this case for the same date or that the parties were to be ready
on 24 hours’ notice. Id.
However, on March 3, 2022, Your Honor issued another order rescheduling the
trial by three days, or until April 7, 2022 and further ordered that the “parties shall be ready to
proceed on 24 hours’ notice on or after April 7, 2022.” See Civil Docket Sheet Entry 136. Not
only did this order push the trial date, this was the very first mention of the parties being required
to proceed on 24 hours’ notice. The very next day, defendants, aware that Linares would not be
available for the duration of the trial because he would be out of the country with his family on
vacation beginning on April 8, 2022, promptly notified the Court of this conflict in an
application that was made with plaintiffs’ consent. See Civil Docket Sheet Entry 137. Such a
conflict did not previously exist with the firm April 4, 2022 trial date as set forth in the Court’s
December 2021 order and because the parties were not previously informed that they were on 24

Case 1:17-cv-00181-LAP Document 139 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 2
140
03/09/22

hours’ notice. Once the scheduling conflict came to light, defendants immediately contacted
plaintiffs’ counsel, advised them of same, and submitted a letter to Your Honor.
Accordingly, and in light of defendant Linares’ schedule, the parties respectfully
request an adjournment of the April 7, 2022 trial date, which also requires the parties to proceed
on 24 hours’ notice. Thank you for your consideration herein.
Respectfully submitted,
/s
Carolyn K. Depoian
Senior Counsel
cc:

All counsel (by ECF)

Because of the Court's COVID protocols, individual judges do not have control
over trial dates. Due to the availability of jurors, the trial date was moved
from April 4, 2022 to April 7, 2022. Also, depending on other scheduled
trials, the actual trial date might change slightly; thus, the parties should
be ready on 24-hour notice.
Although the Court is sympathetic to a family vacation, this long-delayed
trial should proceed. Accordingly, the request for yet another adjournment
[dkt. no. 139] is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 9, 2022
New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge

2