C.S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00157
- 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 21, 2023.
C.S., L.S., and the New York City Department of Education. The action was discontinued, with a possibility of restoration by August 21, 2023 if the settlement could not be put in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
C.S. v. New York City Department of Education concerned an action brought by C.S., individually and on behalf of her child, L.S. The defendant informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The parties could ask to restore the action to the court’s calendar if they could not put their settlement in writing, but that request had to be made by August 21, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- C.S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:23-cv-00157
- Vyskocil
- July 19, 2023
Background
C.S. sued the New York City Department of Education individually and on behalf of her child, L.S. The court received a letter from the Department stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by August 21, 2023. The court further ordered that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Effect
The order ended the action subject to the stated deadline and settlement condition. It did not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not state whether the parties later completed the settlement or sought restoration.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.