Davis v. City Of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:23-cv-00018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davis v. City of New York, Judge Denise Cote received a request to extend four defendants’ response deadline.
The requested deadline extension would affect David Pabon, Jason Vasquez, David Demelia, and Mark O’Connell, and the case’s response schedule. The document also identifies Elijah Davis as the plaintiff.
What happened
Elijah Davis v. City of New York concerns allegations that Elijah Davis was falsely arrested, improperly searched, sexually assaulted, later retaliatorily arrested, and maliciously prosecuted. The letter says these events occurred in 2020.
The City’s lawyer asked for more time—until June 16, 2024—for David Pabon, Jason Vasquez, David Demelia, and Mark O’Connell to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The request said the parties had attended an initial conference and that more time was needed to resolve whether the City’s Corporation Counsel would represent the individual defendants. Davis’s lawyer consented to the request.
The document is a request to Judge Denise Cote, not an order. It does not state that Judge Cote granted or denied the requested extension.
The detailed version
- Davis v. City Of New York · No. 1:23-cv-00018
- Denise Cote
- May 17, 2024
Document and request
The provided document is a May 16, 2024 letter from KellyAnne Holohan, an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, to Judge Denise L. Cote. The letter asks the court to extend the deadline for David Pabon, Jason Vasquez, David Demelia, and Mark O’Connell to answer or otherwise respond to Elijah Davis’s complaint until June 16, 2024. It says this was the second extension request and that counsel for Davis consented.
Background described in the letter
The letter states that Davis filed the complaint on January 4, 2023. It describes allegations that, on January 23, 2020, Davis was falsely arrested, improperly searched, and sexually assaulted by Sergeant David Pabon. It also says Davis alleges that he was subjected to a retaliatory arrest on November 18, 2020, and was later maliciously prosecuted. The parties attended an initial conference on March 22, 2024.
Reason for the requested extension
The City’s counsel said additional time was needed to resolve representation of the four individually named defendants under New York General Municipal Law. The letter stated that at least one of those defendants was believed to be retired from the New York City Police Department and had been difficult to contact.
Status and disposition
The provided text contains a party’s request, not a court ruling. It does not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted or denied the extension. Accordingly, the document’s disposition is not shown in the provided text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.