IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

The Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. (the “PBA”), an intervening union, asked the court to stay—temporarily pause—the settlement approved in this case while the PBA pursued an appeal. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The opinion largely relied on the court’s earlier decision approving the settlement rather than restating the underlying facts.

Legal standard

For a stay pending appeal, the court considered four factors: whether the applicant showed a strong likelihood of success on appeal, whether it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lay. The court explained that the first two factors were the most important and that the party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing that one is justified.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the PBA’s argument that it was likely to succeed on appeal. According to the court, the PBA repeated arguments that had already been considered and rejected, identified no overlooked issue, and cited no new case law undermining the earlier decision.

The court also rejected the PBA’s claim that the settlement would cause irreparable harm, including harm to officer safety. The court had previously considered that concern and found that the settlement’s policing practices were not inconsistent with officer safety. The PBA also speculated that new policies and training required by the settlement could harm officers, but the court found that it offered no evidence or explanation showing irreparable harm.

Because the PBA failed to establish either of the two most important factors, the court did not need to decide the remaining factors. It nevertheless stated that those factors either favored denying a stay or were neutral. The court also concluded that the public interest favored implementing the settlement, which had been accepted by the plaintiffs, the City of New York, individually named defendants, and two other police unions.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon denied the PBA’s motion to stay the settlement pending appeal. The court stated that it would endorse the parties’ dismissal agreements when the settling parties provided them.