Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 29, 2024

Floyd v. The City of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:08-cv-01034
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Torres so ordered an agreement setting compensation and expenses for the federal monitor.

Who this affects

The order affects the City of New York, federal monitor Mylan Denerstein, the monitor’s staff, consultants, experts, and the organizations conducting the two body-camera studies. It requires the City to pay the compensation and expenses described in the agreement.

What happened

Floyd v. City of New York concerns an amended agreement between federal monitor Mylan Denerstein and the City of New York. The agreement covers the monitor’s work under the court’s police-encounter reforms and remains in effect until the court ends the monitor’s duties.

The agreement sets the monitor’s fee at $43,750 per month, provides hourly rates and expense reimbursement for consultants and experts, and establishes payments for two studies of police body-camera footage. It also extends the projected completion dates for those studies.

Judge Analisa Torres ordered the amended compensation agreement on February 28, 2024. The opinion text does not describe any separate dispute over the amounts or provide additional reasoning for the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Floyd v. The City of New York · No. 1:08-cv-01034
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 29, 2024

Background

The document concerns three related cases involving plaintiffs and the City of New York. It is titled “Compensation Agreement Regarding the Federal Monitor.” The agreement is between Mylan Denerstein, identified as the federal monitor, and the City. It amends an earlier monitor agreement and states that it will remain effective until the court ends the monitor’s duties, unless terminated sooner.

Compensation and Expenses

The agreement provides that there will be no fee for monitor work recorded during 2013 and 2014 through October 31, 2014. Beginning January 13, 2022, the monitor’s fee is $43,750 per month. The agreement provides no additional fees for certain Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher personnel currently expected to participate in the monitor’s work, but allows the parties to consider prospective changes if staffing or work substantially increases.

Consultants, experts, and other staff are to be paid at listed hourly rates ranging from $200 to $375. The City will also reimburse reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses, including travel, meals, lodging, and other expenses, subject to the agreement’s terms. Monitor fees are to be paid monthly, and consultant and expert invoices are generally payable within 30 days after receipt.

Court-Mandated Studies

The agreement provides payment for two studies. The CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance is to study New York Police Department body-camera footage concerning compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, documentation, escalation, and racial disparities in police-citizen encounters. Its listed cost was $1,502,381 for 2022, with projected costs of $1,670,000 for January 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024; the projected completion date is extended to July 31, 2024.

A research team from Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and Northwestern University is to conduct a second study using machine-learning techniques to analyze body-camera footage. Its listed cost is $529,310 for February 1, 2023, through April 2024, and its projected completion date is extended to April 30, 2025. The agreement also lists transcription costs of $326,600 and automatic-transcription costs of $59,640, both included in the second study’s stated cost.

Ruling

The document ends with “SO ORDERED” and is signed by Judge Analisa Torres, United States District Judge, dated February 28, 2024. The court therefore ordered the amended compensation agreement. The text does not state that the court resolved any separate challenge to the fees or expenses.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addresses compensation and expenses for a court-appointed monitoring process rather than deciding the underlying legal claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.