Gusman v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-11691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gusman v. City of New York, Judge Cote discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration by January 21, 2021, otherwise with prejudice.
The order affected Arisbel Gusman and all defendants in the action by discontinuing the case, subject to the stated January 21, 2021 restoration deadline.
What happened
Arisbel Gusman sued the City of New York and several city agencies and individuals. The opinion states that the case had been settled, but it does not describe the claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by January 21, 2021.
Judge Denise Cote ordered that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Gusman v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11691
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
The opinion identifies Arisbel Gusman as the plaintiff and the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, the New York City Police Department, the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office, and several named and unidentified individuals as defendants. The court states that the case had been settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or explain the underlying claims.
Order
The court entered an order discontinuing the action without costs to any party. The order allowed either side to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar by January 21, 2021. If no application to restore the case was made by that date, the order provided that the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be revived through that restoration procedure.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Denise Cote did not rule on the merits of Gusman’s claims or the defendants’ positions. The disposition was a discontinuance based on the reported settlement, with a deadline for seeking restoration and a specified consequence if that deadline passed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.