Harvey v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-07570
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harvey v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The dismissal affected Alisha Harvey, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Physician Affiliate Group of New York, P.C.; the order also set conditions for any request to reopen the case or preserve court authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Harvey v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, the court was told that mediation produced an agreement resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the Clerk to terminate open motions and close the case.
Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they also had that period to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement and to submit the agreement as required.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-07570
- Valerie Caproni
- May 19, 2025
Background
The caption identifies Alisha Harvey as the plaintiff and NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation and Physician Affiliate Group of New York, P.C. as the defendants. On May 15, 2025, the court was notified that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
Orders
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The order states that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause may be denied solely on that basis.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, directed closure of the case, and terminated the open motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.