Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2025

Dinis v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-07741
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dinis v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Dinis Athanasios, the New York City Department of Education, and Christina Koza; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement.

What happened

In Dinis v. New York City Department of Education, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, ended the case with prejudice, ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated all open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause. They may also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that same period.

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on June 10, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dinis v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:22-cv-07741
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 10, 2025

Background

Dinis Athanasios sued the New York City Department of Education and Christina Koza, identified in the caption as the principal of Spring Creek Community School. On June 4, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

Order

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.

Possible Reopening and Enforcement

Within 30 days of the order, the parties may apply to reopen the case. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and ask the court to issue an order expressly retaining that authority.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.