Golden v. City of New York

Background

The City asked the court to stay, or pause, the case until the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigation was completed. The court reviewed the City’s submission, Plaintiff Warren Golden’s response, and the parties’ arguments at a conference.

Stay Request

The court denied the City’s motion. It stated that a party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing why one is needed and that a stay generally requires a showing of undue prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the City had not met that burden.

The court noted that the City could not say whether Defendant Tanner was the subject of the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigation or whether the investigation concerned an internal affairs investigation involving Tanner or the September 3, 2022 incident itself, in which Tanner was not involved. The court therefore regarded the claimed effect on the City’s ability to decide whether it could represent Tanner as speculative. It also concluded that an indefinite stay was not the only or most appropriate solution because Tanner could obtain separate counsel temporarily while the City considered whether it could represent him under New York General Municipal Law § 50-k(2).

Response Deadline and Briefing Schedule

The court granted the City’s and Defendants Bragg, Viorst, and Loeb’s request for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The deadline for those defendants and Tanner was extended to December 18, 2024. If any defendant filed a motion to dismiss, Golden’s opposition brief would be due January 15, 2025, and any reply brief would be due January 29, 2025.

Disposition

Judge Gary Stein denied the motion for a stay and granted the request for an extension of time. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint.