Harvey v. Permanent Mission of The Republic of Sierra Leone to the United…
Harvey v. Permanent Mission of The Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-04368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harvey v. Permanent Mission, Judge Ramos invited the State Department’s views before deciding the Harveys’ requests to inspect the mission’s renovation site.
Janet and Joseph Harvey, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, the mission’s codefendants, and the U.S. Department of State, which was invited to provide views.
What happened
In Harvey v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, Janet and Joseph Harvey sued over health dangers they say resulted from the renovation and expansion of the mission next door to their Manhattan home. The mission’s former lawyers withdrew after citing the mission’s lack of cooperation and unpaid legal bills, and the mission did not appear at a later court conference.
The court had allowed the Harveys to seek a default judgment against the mission. The Harveys also asked for an order allowing an inspection of the renovation site. The court scheduled a hearing to consider site access and whether the Harveys could seek damages after an inspection, but it did not decide those requests in this order.
Judge Edgardo Ramos invited the U.S. Department of State to provide its views because the requests raised issues involving the protection of foreign mission premises under the Vienna Convention. The State Department could file a statement by July 31, 2024, or appear at the August 7 hearing. The Harveys were directed to serve the order on the mission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. Permanent Mission of The Republic of Sierra Leone to the United… · No. 1:21-cv-04368
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 9, 2024
Background
Janet and Joseph Harvey brought claims alleging that renovation and expansion of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, located next door to their Manhattan home, posed a danger to their health. The mission previously moved to dismiss, including on the ground that it was protected by foreign-sovereign immunity. The court denied that motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed the immunity ruling in a prior related proceeding.
After the Second Circuit’s mandate issued, the mission’s counsel sought permission to withdraw, citing the mission’s failure to cooperate and failure to pay legal bills. The court allowed the withdrawal and directed the mission to retain new counsel within 30 days. The mission requested additional time, but the court directed it to have new counsel appear by June 14, 2024, and required an individual mission representative to attend a telephone conference. The mission did not appear.
Requests Before the Court
The court allowed the Harveys to move for default judgment against the mission. It also scheduled an August 7, 2024, hearing to consider whether the Harveys and the mission’s codefendants should be allowed to access the renovation site and whether the Harveys should be allowed to seek damages in support of a default judgment after inspecting the site.
The Harveys separately filed a letter motion requesting an inspection. Before withdrawing, the mission’s former counsel argued that an inspection order would violate Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. That provision states in part that mission premises are inviolable and that agents of the receiving state may not enter without the head of the mission’s consent. The Harveys argued that an inspection order would be permissible.
Order
Because of the diplomatic and foreign-immunity issues, Judge Ramos invited the U.S. Department of State to provide its views on the Harveys’ requests or any other issues of interest to the United States. The Department could file a statement of interest by July 31, 2024, or appear at the August 7 order-to-show-cause hearing. If it did neither, the court stated that it would decide the Harveys’ requests based on the existing submissions.
The court directed the Harveys to serve the order by July 12, 2024, on both the mission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for delivery to the State Department. This order invited the State Department’s input and set procedures for considering the requests; it did not decide whether to allow the inspection, permit site access, or award damages.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.