Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2025

Z.S. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and MELISSA AVILES-RAMOS

Full caption

Z.S. and C.S., individually and on behalf of their disabled son A.S. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and MELISSA AVILES-RAMOS

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-05879
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Z.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Z.S. and C.S., and the defendants, the New York City Department of Education and Melissa Aviles-Ramos. The action was discontinued after the reported settlement, subject to the order’s 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement provisions.

What happened

Z.S. and C.S., individually and on behalf of their disabled son A.S., sued the New York City Department of Education and Melissa Aviles-Ramos. The court was informed that the case had been settled.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The order did not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late; the court could retain authority to enforce the settlement only if its terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Z.S. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and MELISSA AVILES-RAMOS · No. 1:25-cv-05879
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Oct. 29, 2025

Background

The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the claims’ underlying facts.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 30 days. It further stated that an application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

The order ended the case based on the reported settlement and did not resolve the underlying legal claims. The court discontinued the action under the terms stated in the order and directed that the case be closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.