Segal v. New York Military Academy
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-06872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Segal v. New York Military Academy, Judge Briccetti granted Segal’s request and directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for the case.
Gilbert Segal, Jr. received an order directing the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for him. The defendants remain parties to the case, and discovery is stayed for all parties subject to the stated initial-disclosure exception.
What happened
In Gilbert Segal, Jr. v. New York Military Academy and Research Center on Natural Conservation Inc., the court considered Segal’s request for a volunteer lawyer. Segal brings claims involving alleged sexual assaults at New York Military Academy, gender discrimination, retaliation, negligence, and related state-law duties.
The court found that Segal was unable to afford a lawyer, that the claims appeared likely to be substantial, and that the case involved difficult legal issues and traumatic events. The court also clarified that an earlier ruling allowing the claims to proceed did not decide that the claims were meritorious.
Judge Briccetti granted the request for pro bono counsel and directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for the remainder of the case. The court also stayed discovery, required initial disclosures by February 7, 2025, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Segal v. New York Military Academy · No. 7:21-cv-06872
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 7, 2025
Request for Counsel
Gilbert Segal, Jr. requested appointment of pro bono counsel on December 26, 2024. The court explained that, in a civil case, it cannot require an attorney to represent a person or provide funds to pay the attorney. Instead, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may ask a volunteer lawyer to represent an eligible person.
Reasons for Granting the Request
The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, it found that Segal was indigent. The court noted that Segal had been unemployed since September 2019, reported no additional income, borrowed money to pay the filing fee, and stated that poverty-level living conditions had limited efforts to retain private counsel.
Second, the court found that Segal’s claims appeared likely to be substantial. Segal asserts gender-discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, as well as claims for negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and breach of a statutory duty to report abuse. Segal alleges repeated sexual assaults while attending New York Military Academy as a fifth- and sixth-grade student in the 1990s, and alleges that school officials knew about the abuse but ignored, condoned, or encouraged it. The court stated that, if these allegations are true, they support Segal’s claims.
The court separately corrected Segal’s description of an August 14, 2023 order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That earlier order found only that, assuming the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint were true, Segal had plausibly stated a claim for relief. It did not find that the claims were meritorious or that Segal had a good claim.
Third, the court found that the remaining factors favored representation. The case presents difficult legal questions, including whether the claims were discharged in New York Military Academy’s bankruptcy and whether Research Center on Natural Conservation Inc. purchased the academy’s assets free of liability for Segal’s claims. The court also found that the traumatic events could impair Segal’s ability to investigate facts and present the case.
Order
The court granted Segal’s request. It directed the Clerk of Court to seek a pro bono lawyer to enter an appearance and represent Segal for all purposes through the remainder of the case. The court warned that volunteer counsel might not be available and that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the representation. If counsel volunteers, that lawyer must file a Notice of Appearance; representation ends when counsel files a Notice of Completion.
The court stayed discovery until further order, except that any outstanding initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) had to be completed by February 7, 2025. The court directed Segal to report by March 6, 2025, on the status of the request for counsel. It also stated that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.