Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 18, 2025

NYU Langone Hospitals v. Local 272 Welfare Fund

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-02127
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In NYU Langone Hospitals v. Local 272 Welfare Fund, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

NYU Langone Hospitals and Local 272 Welfare Fund; the case was closed after the reported settlement in principle, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.

What happened

NYU Langone Hospitals v. Local 272 Welfare Fund was reported to have been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. It also stated that later applications to reopen could be denied solely because they were late.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and adjourned the scheduled April 18, 2025 conference without setting a new date. The court also explained that any request for it to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within 30 days.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
NYU Langone Hospitals v. Local 272 Welfare Fund · No. 1:25-cv-02127
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 18, 2025

Background

The court stated that the parties had reported that the case was settled in principle. The order does not identify the underlying claims or provide the terms of any settlement.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 30 days. Any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was untimely.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The previously scheduled April 18, 2025 conference was adjourned without a new date, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition and Classification

The action was discontinued under the stated settlement-related terms. This is a procedural order because the court did not decide the underlying legal dispute on its merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.