Smith v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-08229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Smith v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied Myra S. Smith’s request to extend the deadline for her already-untimely notice of appeal.
The ruling directly affects Myra S. Smith’s request for additional time to pursue an appeal from the order dismissing her amended complaint; the City of New York is the defendant.
What happened
In Smith v. City of New York, the court had previously dismissed Myra S. Smith’s amended complaint after adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendations. Smith filed a notice of appeal on August 20, 2025, although the deadline was August 17.
Smith also asked for more time, explaining that a disabling medical condition required her to attend medical appointments during court business hours. The court found that her request for an extension was timely, but that she had not explained why she could not file by mail or email.
Judge Rochon denied the request for an extension. The court concluded that Smith had not shown the required excusable neglect, even though the delay was short and there was no evidence of bad faith.
The detailed version
- Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08229
- Rochon
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had previously adopted Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendations and dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The court had also denied Plaintiff’s untimely request for more time to object to those recommendations.
On August 20, 2025, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order adopting the recommendations and also filed a notice of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), the notice of appeal was late because it was not filed within 30 days of the court’s order; the deadline was August 17, 2025.
Reasoning
The court found that Plaintiff’s request for an extension itself was timely because it was filed within 60 days of the order. An extension could be granted only if Plaintiff showed either good cause or excusable neglect. The court explained that good cause applies when circumstances outside the person’s control caused the delay, while excusable neglect applies when the delay resulted from circumstances within the person’s control.
Plaintiff said that she had a disabling, painful medical condition and needed medical care from several medical teams during court business hours. The court was sympathetic but concluded that this explanation did not establish that she was unable to file the notice by mail or email. It therefore treated the delay as at least partly within Plaintiff’s reasonable control and applied the excusable-neglect standard.
The court considered four factors: possible harm to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether Plaintiff acted in good faith. The court found that the first, second, and fourth factors favored Plaintiff because the delay was short, there was no evidence of bad faith, and the opposing party had not been shown to suffer meaningful harm. But the third factor—the reason for the delay—did not favor Plaintiff, and the court considered that factor the most important.
Ruling
Judge Rochon denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. 72 and mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.