Reiver v. The City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-01376
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Reiver v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil ordered a joint letter on whether an appeal prevents considering the City’s planned dismissal motion.
Joseph Reiver and The City of New York, whose positions on the court’s authority to consider a possible motion to dismiss were requested.
What happened
In Reiver v. The City of New York, the City was considering asking the court to dismiss the case. Joseph Reiver had already appealed the court’s denial of his request for emergency relief.
The court noted that an appeal can remove the district court’s authority over the parts of a case involved in the appeal. It therefore questioned whether it could consider a motion to dismiss the entire case while Reiver’s appeal was pending.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 15, 2025, stating their positions on that jurisdiction question. The order did not decide the issue or rule on a motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Reiver v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-01376
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background The court received letters from the parties about the City’s contemplated motion to dismiss the case. Before that motion was filed, Plaintiff Joseph Reiver filed an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case has ended—from the court’s opinion and order denying his application for emergency relief.
Court’s analysis The court cited the rule that an appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, removes the district court’s control over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. Because Reiver’s appeal was pending, the court asked whether it still had jurisdiction, meaning legal authority, to consider a motion to dismiss the entire case.
Order The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 15, 2025, stating their positions on whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the City’s contemplated motion to dismiss while the appeal remained pending. The order did not decide that jurisdiction question and did not rule on a motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.