Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Cronan denied the City’s request for a 30-day dismissal order without Harris’s consent.
Harris and the City of New York. The case was not dismissed by this order; Harris was required to attend the scheduled status conference, and the existing trial-related deadlines continued to apply.
What happened
Harris v. City of New York concerns the City’s request for a 30-day order dismissing the case while the parties finalized a settlement they said had been reached in principle.
The City said it had accepted Harris’s settlement demand during a conference before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. Harris had not appeared at later conferences to confirm the agreement, and her lawyer had told the court that Harris’s position had not changed. The City also said trial preparation and related deadlines were continuing.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the City’s request without Harris’s consent. He said that if Harris agreed to the order, the parties should promptly notify the court. He scheduled a telephone status conference for May 12, 2025, required Harris to attend, and left all trial-related deadlines in effect.
The detailed version
- Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration · No. 1:20-cv-02011
- John Cronan
- May 9, 2025
Background
The City of New York asked the court to enter a 30-day dismissal order so the parties could finalize a settlement. According to the City’s letter, the parties reached a verbal agreement in principle during an April 30, 2025 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. The City said it obtained additional settlement authority to meet Harris’s final demand and communicated that acceptance to the magistrate judge and Harris’s counsel.
Harris left the April 30 conference because of a reported medical emergency. The City said that later efforts to schedule conferences to confirm the agreement on the record were unsuccessful because Harris reportedly had medical appointments or procedures. The City also said it sent a written settlement agreement to Harris’s counsel and that, aside from minor edits, its substantive terms had not changed. Harris’s counsel continued to represent that Harris had not changed her position about the agreement’s terms.
Request and Ruling
The City argued that a 30-day dismissal order would allow time to complete the settlement while conserving the court’s and parties’ resources. It requested the order without Harris’s consent. The court denied that request. The court stated that, if Harris consented to such an order, she should promptly notify the court.
The court scheduled a telephone status conference for May 12, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. It required Harris herself to attend and stated that all trial-related deadlines, including the deadline for filing oppositions to motions in limine, remained in effect. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or that the settlement was finally approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.