Prince v. City Of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-01935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Prince v. City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered expedited processing of a settlement-related lien request and directed the clerk to close ECF No. 51.
Michael Prince, his counsel, the City of New York, and the City’s Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services.
What happened
In Prince v. City of New York, the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The City said it needed an updated lien determination from its Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services before processing the settlement.
Plaintiff’s counsel reported that the agency would not address a February 2022 lien request for an additional, potentially 120-day period without a court order requiring expedited action.
Judge Vernon Broderick ordered the agency to address the lien request on an expedited basis and send the results to plaintiff’s counsel. The court also directed the clerk to close ECF No. 51.
The detailed version
- Prince v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-01935
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
The order states that the parties had reached a settlement in principle that was acceptable to them. To process the settlement, the City of New York required a final lien update from the City’s Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services.
Plaintiff’s counsel reported that the agency had indicated it would not address a lien request submitted in February 2022 for an indeterminate additional period of up to 120 days unless the court issued an order requiring expedited action.
Order
The court ordered the City’s Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services to address the lien request for plaintiff Michael Prince on an expedited basis and provide the results to plaintiff’s counsel, Wylie Stecklow PLLC. The court also directed the clerk to close ECF No. 51.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning administration of a settlement-related lien request. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.