Congregation Rabbinical Institute of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-01471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Congregation Rabbinical Institute of Tartikov v. Village of Pomona, Judge Roman granted defendants a 30-day extension to respond to the amended complaint and injunction motion.
The defendants received additional time to respond to the amended complaint and the preliminary-injunction motion; the plaintiff's objection did not prevent the extension.
What happened
Defendants asked for 45 more days to respond to the amended complaint and to a preliminary-injunction motion that had been served but not filed with the court. They said the case had a long history and that lead defense counsel was scheduled for trial elsewhere.
The plaintiff objected, and the parties had not agreed to the full extension requested. The court granted defendants a 30-day extension, setting June 14, 2025, as the deadline to respond to both the amended complaint and the preliminary-injunction motion.
Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order on May 22, 2025. The order also directed the clerk to terminate the motion requesting the extension.
The detailed version
- Congregation Rabbinical Institute of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY · No. 7:25-cv-01471
- Nelson Roman
- May 22, 2025
What the defendants requested
Defendants requested a 45-day extension, from May 14, 2025, to June 28, 2025, to respond to the amended complaint. They also asked for the deadline to respond to the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to be extended to June 28. The letter states that the plaintiff had served the preliminary-injunction motion on April 23, 2025, but had not filed it with the court.
Defendants described this as their first request for the extension. They stated that additional time was needed to investigate the new claims and prepare responses, and that the defense attorney expected to lead the case was in trial in the Eastern District through the following week. The letter also stated that the plaintiff had agreed to a 14-day extension but that defendants considered that insufficient.
Ruling
Despite the plaintiff's objection, the court granted defendants a 30-day extension of the time to respond to both the amended complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court set June 14, 2025, as the deadline. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 10.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.