Bernard v. The City Of New York

Document and procedural posture

The provided text is a February 25, 2025 letter from Jeffrey Noll, an Assistant Corporation Counsel representing the defendants. The letter asks the court to: (1) endorse an agreed briefing schedule for the defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment; (2) stay, or pause, discovery while that motion is pending; and (3) permit the parties to forgo a court-ordered mediation scheduled for February 28, 2025. The text does not include a ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote on these requests.

Background and claims described in the letter

The letter states that Kimberly Bernard was arrested on May 8, 2023, while protesting outside the New York City Police Department’s 7th Precinct, based on conduct at a protest two days earlier. According to the letter, video footage showed Bernard standing on subway tracks at the Lexington Avenue and 63rd Street subway station. The District Attorney’s Office charged her with obstructing governmental administration and third-degree criminal trespass.

The letter says Bernard asserted federal claims for excessive force, fabrication of evidence, failure to intervene, an equal-protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation under the First Amendment, and a claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services. It also says she asserted supplemental state-law claims and claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under New York City Administrative Code § 8-801. The letter notes that Bernard’s late-notice-of-claim petition under New York General Municipal Law § 50-e was pending in state court.

Defendants’ anticipated arguments

The defendants’ attorney argued that body-camera footage showed objectively reasonable force, defeating the excessive-force claim. The letter further argued that video of Bernard on the subway tracks established probable cause for third-degree criminal trespass. It asserted that probable cause also defeated the equal-protection, First Amendment retaliation, false-arrest, and malicious-prosecution claims. The letter separately argued that the video disproved fabrication of evidence and that the failure-to-intervene and Monell claims failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation.

Requested schedule and status

The requested schedule set April 4, 2025, for the defendants’ summary-judgment motion; May 5, 2025, for Bernard’s opposition; and May 19, 2025, for the defendants’ reply. The letter also asked to pause discovery while the motion was pending and to forgo mediation. The provided text contains no order granting or denying any request and no decision on the merits of Bernard’s claims. Judge Denise L. Cote’s action is therefore not shown in the provided text.