McKenzie v. The City of Mount Vernon
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-00603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McKenzie v. The City of Mount Vernon, Judge Krause addressed rescheduling the damages inquest and ordered a status report and service on defaulting defendants.
Nadine McKenzie, her counsel, the defaulting defendants, and the scheduling of the damages inquest.
What happened
McKenzie v. The City of Mount Vernon involved Nadine McKenzie’s request to postpone a damages hearing scheduled for April 25, 2023. Her lawyers said she needed to travel to Florida to help an 87-year-old relative after cancer-related surgery.
The endorsed order directed McKenzie’s lawyers to report by May 16, 2023, on when the hearing could be rescheduled—or to estimate when McKenzie would return if she was still in Florida. It also required the plaintiffs to serve the order on the defendants who had not appeared and file proof of service.
Judge Andrew E. Krause signed the order on April 21, 2023. The order did not expressly say that the postponement request was granted or denied, and it did not decide the underlying claims or damages.
The detailed version
- McKenzie v. The City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:18-cv-00603
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Nadine McKenzie, through her lawyers, asked the court to postpone a damages inquest scheduled for April 25, 2023. A damages inquest is a hearing used to determine the amount of damages after liability has been established or a defendant has failed to appear. Counsel stated that McKenzie needed to travel to Florida to provide physical assistance to an 87-year-old relative who had undergone major cancer-related surgery on April 20, 2023. Counsel also stated that the relative was hospitalized and would later need care at home, and that no one else was available to provide the necessary physical assistance.
Order
The court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a status report by May 16, 2023, about the timing of a rescheduled inquest hearing. If McKenzie had not returned from Florida by that date, counsel was required to provide the best available estimate of when she would return. The court also directed the plaintiffs to serve a copy of the endorsed order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service.
The order did not expressly state that the request to adjourn was granted or denied. Its directions contemplated that the inquest would be rescheduled, but the text supplied does not identify a new hearing date. The order addressed scheduling and service only; it did not decide the underlying claims or the amount of damages. This is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.