Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 11, 2023

Nikaj v. Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-08959
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Nikaj v. Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 12, 2023.

Who this affects

Olivia Nikaj and Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp.; their action was discontinued without costs, subject to the stated deadline and conditions for restoration.

What happened

In Nikaj v. Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp., a mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore it was filed by June 12, 2023.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration application was filed by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored under that order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nikaj v. Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08959
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 11, 2023

Background

The court was informed by the mediator assigned to the case that Olivia Nikaj and Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp. had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement's terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed either party to seek restoration of the action to the court's calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but the application had to be made by June 12, 2023.

The order further stated that, if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court 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.