C.S. v. New York City Department of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-07927
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In C.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by August 28.
The plaintiffs, C.S. and C.S.1 on behalf of themselves and Y.S., and the defendants—the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor Meisha Porter in her official capacity—were affected by the conditional discontinuance and dismissal.
What happened
C.S. and C.S.1 sued the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor Meisha Porter in her official capacity on behalf of themselves and their child, Y.S. In a letter, they told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms. It states only that the parties had not yet memorialized their settlement in writing.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by August 28, 2022; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- C.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-07927
- Vyskocil
- July 28, 2022
Background
C.S. and C.S.1 brought this action on behalf of themselves and their child, Y.S., against the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor Meisha Porter in her official capacity. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the factual background of the dispute.
The plaintiffs filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the terms of that proposed settlement.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by August 28, 2022.
The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by August 28, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.