Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2023

Levy v. NYC Health + Hospitals

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-09142
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Levy v. NYC Health + Hospitals, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Kristin Levy and NYC Health + Hospitals and Medical Staffing Services, Inc.; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either side.

What happened

In Levy v. NYC Health + Hospitals, the parties told the court that mediation had resolved all issues.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither side pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The settlement terms are not stated in the opinion.

Judge Valerie Caproni directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Levy v. NYC Health + Hospitals · No. 1:21-cv-09142
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 25, 2023

Background

The court was notified that Kristin Levy and the defendants had reached an agreement resolving all issues through mediation. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the settlement.

Ruling

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.