Grazette v. Rockefeller

Filing 77

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 76 Status Report filed by City of New York. ENDORSEMENT : The stay of this action is LIFTED, and the Court holds in abeyance the City's answer to the amended complaint. By Monday, February 7, 2022, Defendant City shall file with the Court and serve on Mr. Grazette a letter identifying the John Doe defendants in accordance with the Order of Service. (ECF No. 19 at 56). Within 30 days of receiving this information, Mr. Grazette must file a second amended comp laint ("SAC") naming the John Doe defendants. (Id.) The Court refers Mr. Grazette to the Order of Service for instructions concerning the SAC. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail this Order, and a copy of the Order of Ser vice (ECF No. 19) to Mr. Grazette, at the address below. Mail To: David I. Grazette 285 Pulaski Street, Apt. 4R Brooklyn, New York 11206. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 1/7/22) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:20-cv-00965-AJN-SLC Document 77 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2
The stay of this action is LIFTED, and the Court holds in abeyance the City's answer to the amended complaint.
By Monday, February 7, 2022, Defendant City shall file with the Court and serve on Mr. Grazette a letter identifying
the John Doe defendants in accordance with the Order of Service. (ECF No. 19 at 5–6). Within 30 days of receiving
this information, Mr. Grazette must file a second amended complaint ("SAC") naming the John Doe defendants. (Id.)
The Court refers Mr. Grazette to the Order of Service for instructions concerning the SAC.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail this Order, and a copy of the Order of Service (ECF No. 19) to Mr.
Grazette, at the address below.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

GEORGIA M. PESTANA

SOCorporation Counsel
ORDERED 1/7/2022

ANDREW B. SPEARS
Assistant Corporation Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

Mail To: David I. Grazette
285 Pulaski Street, Apt. 4R
Brooklyn, New York 11206
VIA ECF
Hon. Sarah L. Cave
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

January 6, 2022

Grazette v. City of New York, et al.,
20 Civ. 965 (AJN) (SLC)

Your Honor:
I am the attorney assigned to represent defendant the City of New York (the “City”) in the
above-referenced matter. The City writes, pursuant to the Court’s Order dated December 8, 2021
(ECF No. 75), to provide a further update as to the status of the Civilian Complaint Review Board
(“CCRB”) investigation related to the events underlying the allegations in this case, and to
respectfully request: (1) that the current stay of proceedings be lifted; (2) that the Court afford this
Office thirty (30) days to identify the remaining New York City Police Department (“NYPD”)
John Doe defendants named in the Amended Complaint; and (3) that the Court hold the City’s
answer to the Amended Complaint in abeyance, pending the filing of plaintiff’s second amended
complaint (see ECF No. 19).
By way of background, on September 2, 2020, the Court issued a Valentin Order
instructing this Office to file a letter identifying the NYPD John Doe defendants named in the
Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 19). The Valentin Order further instructed plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants within thirty days of the City’s letter.
(See id.). On October 8, 2020, the City was served with the Amended Complaint. (See ECF No.
28). On October 26, 2020, the City filed a letter motion requesting that this case be stayed, as this
Office was informed by CCRB that an investigation into the incident underlying this action was
pending. (ECF No. 32). On November 2, 2020, this Office identified one of the NYPD John Doe
defendants, and requested an additional sixty days to identify the remaining NYPD John Doe
defendants. (ECF No. 35).
On November 6, 2020, the Court granted the City’s motion to stay proceedings, and further
ordered the City to submit a status report “updating the Court and Plaintiff about the status of the
CCRB’s investigation on Tuesday, January 5, 2021.” (ECF No. 38). Thereafter, the City
submitted several additional status reports advising the Court and plaintiff that the CCRB

Case 1:20-cv-00965-AJN-SLC Document 77 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

investigation into the incident underlying this action remained pending. (ECF Nos. 42, 48, 55, 59,
63, 68, 70, 72, and 74). On December 8, 2021, the Court continued the stay of this action and
instructed the City to provide a further status report concerning the CCRB investigation by January
6, 2022. (ECF No. 75).
This Office writes herein to inform the Court that it is advised that, as of December 29,
2021, the CCRB investigation into the incident underlying this action is closed. The undersigned
subsequently requested additional materials from CCRB concerning the outcome of the
investigation, which were received on January 6, 2022.
While the CCRB investigation has concluded, this Office has only just received additional
documentation regarding its outcome, including the relevant materials generated by CCRB during
the investigation. Thus, as this Office has not yet been able to review these materials, additional
time is needed to identify the remaining NYPD John Doe defendants referenced in the Court’s
September 2, 2020 Valentin Order. (See ECF No. 19).
As the CCRB investigation related to the events underlying the allegations in this case is
no longer pending, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court lift the stay of the instant
matter. Moreover, based on the foregoing, the City further respectfully requests thirty (30) days
to identify the remaining NYPD John Doe defendants named in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
and that the Court hold the City’s answer in abeyance, pending the filing of plaintiff’s second
amended complaint (see ECF No. 19). The undersigned respectfully submits that the requested
deadline will allow this Office to review the materials received from CCRB and ascertain the
identities of the additional NYPD defendants named in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
The City thanks the Court for its time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

Andrew B. Spears

/s

Andrew B. Spears
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
CC:

VIA E-MAIL ONLY
David I. Grazette
Plaintiff pro se
[e-mail]

CC:

VIA ECF
Gregory John Radomisli
Attorney for defendants New York-Presbyterian
Healthcare System and Sharon Hird

-2-