Barkai v. Nuendorf
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-04060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ariel Dan Barkat v. Robert Nuendoerf, Judge Karas denied as moot Barkat’s request for a live evidentiary hearing because the relevant proceedings had already occurred.
Ariel Dan Barkat’s request for an in-person status conference and evidentiary hearing was denied as moot; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
What happened
In Ariel Dan Barkat v. Robert Nuendoerf, Ariel Dan Barkat, who represented himself, asked the court to hold a September 2024 status conference in person and turn it into an evidentiary hearing. He wanted to present recordings and computer-assisted analysis of those recordings concerning his claims.
Barkat argued that the recordings were important to upcoming summary-judgment motions and would help establish facts he viewed as undisputed. He also argued that the recordings were the only objective evidence available because the Clarkstown Police Department did not use body cameras.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the request as moot because the pre-motion conference had been held on December 17, 2024. The court also noted that it had denied Barkat’s request for a factual hearing on August 28, 2024, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Barkai v. Nuendorf · No. 7:21-cv-04060
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
Ariel Dan Barkat, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to hold a September 2024 status conference live and in person and to supplement it with an evidentiary hearing. He sought to present recordings and computer-assisted analysis of the recordings, which he said supported undisputed facts related to his claims.
Barkat argued that playing the recordings in court would be more effective than describing them within the 25-page limit for summary-judgment briefing. He also argued that the recordings were especially important because, in his view, the Clarkstown Police Department’s failure to use body cameras left his recording as the only objective evidence available to the court and future factfinders. The opinion recounts these arguments but does not decide whether the recordings establish the facts Barkat asserted.
Ruling
The court denied Barkat’s request as moot. It explained that the pre-motion conference had already been held on December 17, 2024. The court further stated that Barkat’s request for a factual hearing had been denied on August 28, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion. The order did not resolve the underlying claims or rule on the anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.