Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 3, 2023

Volfman v. Nagrano LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-10785
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Volfman v. Nagrano LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by June 3, 2023.

Who this affects

Joseph Volfman, Nagrano LLC doing business as Julietta Gelato Cafe, and Christopher Bleecker Owner LLC.

What happened

In Volfman v. Nagrano LLC, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms. It states that the case involved Joseph Volfman, Nagrano LLC doing business as Julietta Gelato Cafe, and Christopher Bleecker Owner LLC.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it by June 3, 2023. If no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Other dates and deadlines were postponed without a new date.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Volfman v. Nagrano LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10785
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 3, 2023

Background

The court stated that plaintiff Joseph Volfman informed it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed either side to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar by June 3, 2023, without prejudice. If no application to restore the action was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.

Effect

The order ended the action based on the reported settlement in principle, while preserving the stated opportunity to restore the case by the deadline. It did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.