Grey v. City of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-10666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tyreick Grey v. City of New York, Judge Hellerstein denied an indefinite-stay request but stayed the case until April 30, 2021, for case management.
The order affects Tyreick Grey, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and the individual defendants. It temporarily pauses the case, sets a case-management conference and discovery-planning requirement, and requires the City’s lawyers to clarify whether they will represent the individual defendants.
What happened
Tyreick Grey v. City of New York concerns Grey’s allegations that inmates attacked and seriously injured him at Rikers Island and that defendants failed to protect him. He asserted state-law claims and claims under a federal civil-rights law, including failure to protect, inadequate training, and deliberate indifference to medical needs.
The City asked to pause the entire case until 30 days after a Department of Correction investigation ended. The City said the investigation affected whether the City’s lawyers could represent the individual defendants and limited access to information and documents. Grey consented to the requested stay.
Judge Hellerstein denied the request for an indefinite stay but ordered the case stayed for about 30 days, until April 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The parties were directed to attend an initial case-management conference and present a discovery plan; by April 20, the City’s lawyers had to tell the individual defendants whether they would represent them.
The detailed version
- Grey v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10666
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 19, 2021
Background
The City of New York submitted a request to pause the civil case. The request concerned claims by Tyreick Grey against the City, the New York City Department of Correction, and individual defendants. The opinion states that Grey alleged he was attacked and seriously injured by inmates on two separate occasions at Rikers Island and that the individual defendants failed to protect him.
Grey asserted state-law claims for negligence, negligent hiring, and failure to train and supervise. He also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, for alleged failures to train and supervise, intervene, and protect; deprivation of due process; cruel and inhumane treatment; deliberate indifference to medical needs; and intentional infliction of emotional harm. He also asserted a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The opinion states that three correction officers had apparently not been served.
Requested stay
The City asked the court to stay the entire case until 30 days after a Department of Correction investigation into the allegations ended. The City said New York law required the Corporation Counsel to determine whether individual employees acted within the scope of their employment before deciding whether to represent them. It also said representation and indemnification could be withheld while a related disciplinary proceeding was pending unless the proceeding exonerated the employee.
The City further argued that the pending investigation limited its lawyers’ ability to communicate substantively with the individual defendants because of possible conflicts of interest. It also asserted that documents, recordings, and other information could be protected from disclosure during the investigation by the law-enforcement and deliberative-process privileges. According to the City, proceeding during the investigation would leave the parties with limited information and impair the City’s ability to respond to the complaint and conduct discovery. Grey consented to the requested stay.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied the motion for an indefinite stay. It nevertheless ordered that the case be stayed for approximately 30 days, until April 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The parties were ordered to attend the initial case-management conference at that time and submit a discovery plan.
The court also directed the Corporation Counsel, by April 20, 2021, to advise the individual defendants whether the office would represent them. Any individual defendants not represented by the Corporation Counsel were to appear through their own attorneys, obtained through their union or otherwise, or without an attorney. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also cautioned the Corporation Counsel not to submit letter motions and stated that motions should be filed under the applicable federal and local rules.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.