Appling v. The City of New York

Background

Jaylen Appling and J.M., a minor represented by J.M.’s parent and guardian, Ely Torres, brought claims against the City of New York and individual New York City Police Department officers. According to the application, the plaintiffs allege that they were stopped without cause on multiple dates between December 23, 2023, and July 4, 2024. They claim that they were unlawfully stopped, searched, and subjected to excessive force during their detentions.

The claims include federal and state claims for false arrest and excessive force, federal claims for failure to intervene and municipal liability, and supplemental state-law and New York City Administrative Code claims.

Requested stay

The City, with the plaintiffs’ consent, requested a 60-day stay from June 30 through August 29, 2025. The City stated that the Civilian Complaint Review Board had pending investigations concerning alleged incidents on December 13, 2023, May 30, 2024, and July 4, 2024, and that the individual officers were subjects of those investigations.

The City argued that a stay was warranted because the investigations could affect whether the New York City Law Department could represent the individual officers. It also argued that representing both the City and officers before the investigations ended could create a conflict of interest, and that information and documents generated during the investigations were protected from disclosure while the investigations remained pending. The City further argued that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced because relevant documents had been obtained and preserved by the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

Settlement conference request

The parties jointly requested that the case be referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for a settlement conference during the stay.

Ruling

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the application. The case was stayed for 60 days in its entirety, all deadlines were adjourned until the conclusion of the requested stay, and the matter was referred for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. The order addressed case management and settlement; it did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.