Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 24, 2025

Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen

Full caption

Janice Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen, David A. Kasen, Jenny R. Kasen, Kasen & Kasen P.C., and Francine S. Kasen

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-01628
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
BankruptcyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carrington v. Kasen, Judge Abrams dismissed Carrington’s appeal without prejudice because she neither paid the fee nor completed required filings.

Who this affects

Janice Carrington’s appeal was dismissed without prejudice. The order allowed her to return the appeal to the docket by paying the filing fee or requesting permission to proceed without prepaying it and then filing the required brief; otherwise, the matter would be deemed dismissed with prejudice after thirty days.

What happened

Janice Carrington appealed an order dated January 14, 2025, but the court said she had not paid the required filing fee or asked to proceed without prepaying it. She also had not filed and served the required description of the appeal record and statement of issues.

The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice because the record did not contain enough information to evaluate it. Carrington could return the appeal to the docket by paying the fee or requesting permission to proceed without prepaying it, and then filing a required brief within fifteen days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the case closed, subject to reopening under those conditions. If Carrington did not pay the fee or request that status within thirty days, the matter would be deemed dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carrington v. Michael J. Kasen · No. 1:25-cv-01628
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 24, 2025

Background

Janice Carrington filed an appeal from an order entered in the Office of the County Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated January 14, 2025. The opinion states that the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court informed the District Court that Carrington had not paid the required filing fee or requested permission to proceed without prepaying the fee. It also states that she had not filed and served on the appellees a designation of the items to be included in the appeal record and a statement of the issues to be presented.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that parties beginning a civil action in federal district court generally must pay a filing fee. Under the federal statute governing payment waivers, a person may request permission to proceed without prepaying fees by submitting an affidavit showing, among other things, an inability to pay. Carrington had done neither for this appeal.

The court also applied Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1), which requires an appellant to serve and file a brief within fifteen days after the appeal is entered on the docket. The court explained that an appellant’s failure to take required steps beyond timely filing a notice of appeal can support dismissal, although the applicable time limits are not jurisdictional. Because the record then contained nothing available to evaluate the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss it.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that Carrington’s appeal be dismissed without prejudice. She was ordered either to pay the required filing fee or request permission to proceed without prepaying it in order to return the appeal to the court’s docket. If she failed to do either within thirty days after the order’s entry, the matter would be deemed dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If she paid the fee or made the request, she also had to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) by serving and filing a brief within fifteen days of that action. The Clerk was directed to close the case, subject to reopening as provided in the order, and to mail Carrington a copy of the order.

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.