Quire v. City Of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-10504
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Quire v. City of New York, Judge Abrams ordered the parties to explain how a state appellate decision affects their arguments.
The parties to the federal case—Brian Quire, the City of New York, and the other named defendants—were required to address the effect of the First Department’s decision.
What happened
In Quire v. City of New York, the court noted that New York’s First Department had issued a decision concerning Brian Quire’s petition under Article 78, a state procedure for challenging government action.
The order does not describe what the First Department decided or resolve the parties’ underlying arguments. Instead, it asks the parties to address the possible effect of that decision.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered each side to file a letter brief within two weeks, with each brief limited to five pages. The order did not otherwise grant, deny, dismiss, or decide a motion.
The detailed version
- Quire v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10504
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 28, 2020
Background
Brian Quire is the plaintiff, and the City of New York and other defendants are named in the caption. The court stated that New York’s First Department had issued a December 3, 2020 decision concerning Quire’s Article 78 petition. Article 78 is a New York procedure for seeking court review of certain government actions.
Order
The court directed the parties to file letter briefs within two weeks of the order’s date. Each brief could be no longer than five pages. The briefs had to explain what effect, if any, the First Department’s decision had on the arguments made in the parties’ motion papers.
What the Order Decided
The order did not state the result of the First Department’s decision, decide the parties’ underlying legal arguments, or rule on any motion. It required additional briefing so the court could consider the possible effect of the state appellate decision. The order was signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on December 28, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.