Urena v. The City of New York
- John Koeltl
- 1:25-cv-00513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Amaury Urena v. City of New York, Judge Koeltl granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case with prejudice because a prior release barred Urena’s claim.
Amaury Urena’s civil-rights claim against the City of New York, Captain Caesar, and an unidentified correction officer was dismissed with prejudice; the defendants obtained judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Amaury Urena v. The City of New York, et al., Amaury Urena alleged that correction officers used excessive force after he refused a strip search, including by tightening his handcuffs, using chemical agents, and putting him in a decontamination shower while restrained. He sought $10 million in damages.
The defendants argued that Urena had signed a general release while settling an earlier case. The release covered civil-rights claims against New York City and its officials arising before November 1, 2024. The January 8, 2024 incident described in this case occurred before that date, and Urena did not identify fraud, pressure, or another legal basis to invalidate the release.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and held that the release barred Urena’s civil-rights claim as a matter of law. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice and to close all pending motions.
The detailed version
- Urena v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-00513
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 11, 2025
Background
Amaury Urena, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Captain Caesar, and an unidentified correction officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correction officers used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment after he refused to submit to a strip search. According to the complaint, officers placed him in restraints, one officer intentionally tightened his handcuffs, Captain Caesar refused to loosen them, officers used chemical agents, and officers placed him in a decontamination shower while he remained fully clothed and restrained in leg shackles. Urena sought $10 million in damages.
The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Urena did not oppose the motion. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and considered the pleadings and the general release from an earlier settlement.
Release
On November 1, 2024, Urena signed a general release in exchange for consideration in connection with an earlier case. The release discharged City of New York officials, employees, representatives, and agents from all civil-rights claims and related state-law claims arising from the beginning of the world through the date of the release. The incident underlying this case occurred on January 8, 2024, before Urena signed the release.
Under New York law, the court explained, a clear and unambiguous release that was knowingly and voluntarily entered generally binds the parties unless there is a valid defense such as fraud, duress, or undue influence. The court found that the release covered Urena’s § 1983 claim and that Urena had identified no basis for setting the release aside.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the general release barred Urena’s § 1983 claim as a matter of law. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice and to close all pending motions.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.