Hans-Gaston v. Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corporation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-04601
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hans-Gaston v. Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corporation, Judge Woods remanded the case to state court and closed it.
Principal Hans-Gaston and the defendants, because the case was sent to state court and the federal case was closed.
What happened
In Hans-Gaston v. Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corporation, the federal court held a conference on June 26, 2025, but this order does not explain the underlying dispute.
The court directed the Clerk to send the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. It also directed the Clerk to mail the plaintiff a copy of the order, terminate the motion at Docket No. 2, and close the federal case.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order does not state why the case was remanded.
The detailed version
- Hans-Gaston v. Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-04601
- Gregory Woods
- June 26, 2025
Order
For reasons stated during a June 26, 2025 conference, Judge Woods directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, without delay. “Remand” means sending a case from federal court to state court. The opinion does not provide the reasons stated during the conference or otherwise explain the basis for the remand.
The Clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Principal Hans-Gaston, terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 2, and close the federal case.
Appeal
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying the required fees—for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The case was remanded to state court, the pending motion was terminated, and the federal case was closed. The order did not decide the underlying dispute, so this is a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.