A.D. v. New York City Department of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-09328
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In A.D. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action without prejudice to restoration by April 25, 2024, after settlement in principle.
A.D. and her minor child M.W., as the plaintiffs, and the New York City Department of Education, as the defendant. The action was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline.
What happened
In A.D. v. New York City Department of Education, A.D., acting for her minor child M.W., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education. The court received the Department’s letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by April 25, 2024. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on March 26, 2024. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.
The detailed version
- A.D. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-09328
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
A.D. brought the action on behalf of her minor child, M.W., against the New York City Department of Education. The court received a letter from the Department stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The order does not identify the claims or describe the proposed settlement’s terms.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize, or put into writing, their settlement.
The court required any application to restore the action to be made by April 25, 2024. It stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order does not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Effect
The case was taken off the court’s calendar based on the reported settlement in principle. The parties retained the stated opportunity to seek restoration by the deadline if they could not complete a written settlement; otherwise, the dismissal would become with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.