Global Leadership Foundation v. City of New York

Document and procedural posture

The provided text is a March 2, 2022 letter from Michael Chestnov, senior counsel for the City of New York defendants, addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote. It asks for an extension of time to respond to the complaint and for an adjournment, or postponement, of the initial conference. The text does not include a court order or state how the court ruled on those requests.

Parties and claims described

The letter identifies the represented defendants as the City of New York, the New York City Department of Finance, the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Frances Henn, and former Mayor Bill De Blasio. The plaintiff also named Sherif Soliman, Michael Hyman, Timothy Sheares, Pierre Dejean, and Carmela Quintas, but the letter says that the City’s Law Department had not yet decided whether it would represent those defendants.

According to the letter, Global Leadership Foundation brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The letter describes allegations that, in retaliation for some of the plaintiff’s principals speaking out against and challenging the City’s acquisition of property in East Harlem through eminent domain, the defendants revoked the tax-exempt status of the plaintiff’s property in College Point, Queens, and aggressively reassessed that property. The plaintiff also allegedly claims that the City favors churches over secular organizations when applying its property-tax system. These allegations are described in the letter; the provided text does not decide whether they are true.

Requests and parties’ positions

The City’s counsel requested that the represented defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint be extended from March 4, 2022, to May 3, 2022. Counsel also asked that the initial conference set for March 31, 2022, be postponed until after the pleadings were completed. The letter states that this was the first request for an extension and adjournment in the case.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Violet Elizabeth Grayson, consented to the requests on the condition that the plaintiff receive 60 days to oppose any motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The City’s counsel stated that the defendants would agree to that response period if they filed such a motion. The letter says the defendants had not yet decided whether to answer the complaint or seek dismissal.

Disposition

The provided text does not show a ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote. Therefore, it does not establish that the extension or adjournment was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. It also does not resolve the underlying claims.