• No results found

Jimenez v New York City Dept. of Educ NY Slip Op 32537(U) December 2, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Jimenez v New York City Dept. of Educ NY Slip Op 32537(U) December 2, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No."

Copied!
5
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155825/2018

Judge: Lyle E. Frank

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

(2)

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12 / 03 /2 021 11: 2 9 AM]

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59

INDEX NO. 155825/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2021

PRESENT:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

HON. LYLE FRANK PART

Justice

52M

--- ---X INDEX NO. 155825/2018 MOISES JIMENEZ, DEVAUN LONGLEY, R.O BY HIS

GUARDIAN DORIS AFUMAA, A.A. BY HIS GUARDIAN FRANCISCO BALLESTER, INTEGRATENYC INC.,

Plaintiff,

- V -

THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATHLETIC LEAGUE, PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATHLETIC LEAGUE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DONALD J. DOUGLAS,

Defendant.

--- ---X

MOTION DATE N/A

MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,57,58

were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS

An application has been made pursuant to CPLR 908 for an order preliminarily

approving the settlement of this action as between Moises Jimenez, Devaun Longley, R.O. by his guardian Doris Afumaa (collectively "Class Plaintiffs"), and IntegrateNYC Inc. (collectively, the

"Plaintiffs") and the New York City Department of Education and the Public Schools Athletic League (collectively, the "Defendants") pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated November

16, 2021 and its Exhibits attached as Exhibit 1 hereto, which sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the action and the disposition of all claims against the Defendants pleaded in the Amended Complaint.

The Court has read and considered the Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits, as well as all papers filed in connection with the application for its approval. Based thereon, and good cause appearing therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. This Preliminary Approval Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the

155825/2018 Motion No. 001 Page 1 of4

[* 1]

(3)

Settlement Agreement, and all terms used herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, all members of the Class defined below, and Defendants.

3. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, including its

payment and release provisions, as within the range of possible final approval and warranting the provisional certification of the Class defined below, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing described below.

4. The Court determines that the Class Notice in the form of Exhibit B to the

Settlement Agreement and the Notice Plan as described in the Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate, and sufficient, constituting the best practicable notice under the circumstances, and are reasonably calculated to reach all or a substantial percentage of the members of the Class and apprise them of this action, the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, and their rights under the Settlement Agreement. The Court directs that notice in the form prescribed be given to the members of the Class in accordance with the Notice Plan.

5. The Final Approval Hearing on the Settlement Agreement shall be held on

March 9, 2022 at 10 am in room 308 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, at 80 Centre Street, New York, NY 10013. At that Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider the fairness of the Settlement Agreement, determine whether the Settlement Agreement was made in good faith and should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and determine whether a Judgment and Order Granting Final Approval should be entered.

6. Any member of the Class may object to this Settlement Agreement (be an

155825/2018 Motion No. 001 Page 2 of 4

(4)

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12 / 03 /2 021 11: 2 9 AM]

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59

INDEX NO. 155825/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2021

"Objector"). Such an Objector must send a written statement of objections to Class Counsel, postmarked no later than February 18, 2022. That statement must (i) state the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector, (ii) state whether the Objector or his or her lawyer will ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, (iii) describe all objections of the Objector and the specific reasons therefor (including legal support that the Objector wishes to bring to the Court's

attention), and (iv) attach any affidavits or other evidence relied upon in support of the objection.

No later than 10 days before the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel will file with the Court and serve upon counsel for Defendants all such objections in a single submission. In addition, any Objector or counsel for an Objector that desires to appear at the Final Approval Hearing must file with the Court and mail to Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendants, by first class mail and postmarked no later than 20 days before the date set for the Final Approval Hearing, a separate notice of intention to appear and any affidavits or other papers in support of the objection(s ).

Counsel for the parties shall be permitted to file and serve any response no later than 10 days before the date set for the Final Approval Hearing. No reply papers will be received.

7. All other motions and papers filed in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement shall be filed no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the Final Approval

Hearing. The Court may continue the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to the Class.

8. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement. The Court may approve the Settlement Agreement with such modifications as may be agreed to by Class Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, and the Defendants, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class.

9. Pending determination of whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved, (i) all discovery is stayed, and (ii) all other proceedings in the Action as between

155825/2018 Motion No. 001 Page 3 of 4

[* 3]

(5)

Plaintiffs and Defendants, except those related to effectuating or complying with the Settlement Agreement, also are stayed.

12/2/2021

DATE

CHECK ONE:

APPLICATION:

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:

155825/2018 Motion No. 001

CASE DISPOSED

GRANTED

DENIED

SETTLE ORDER

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN

LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT

OTHER

REFERENCE

Page4 of 4

References

Related documents

In their opposition, NYCHA and Technico assert that Kordun fails to meet its primafacie burden for summary judgment, and that even if it does, summary judgment is not warranted as

On October 18, 2021, the court the court sent a second courtesy inquiry e-mail to plaintiff’s counsel, and plaintiff’s counsel again did not reply. Accordingly, it

***In the event of Husband's death before the Wife, the Wife shall be entitled to the former spouses (sic) survivor annuity. Husband shall designate wife as his death benefit

which of several bases the Board actually relied on to makes its decision. Considering that the Board has provided conflicting justifications for its decision, that the police

“the patient’s history, the objective test, such as the aforementioned range of motion testing, and a review of the MRI of her Cervical Spine and Lumbar Spine it can be stated with

This is particularly so' in light of the fact that the petitioner has admitted to the majority of the conduct he was accused of and that the petitioner does

In her conclusions of law, Officer Shields found that petitioner had violated the 'rules and regulations governing his permit by moving his home address in 1986

Budhai alleges causes of action under Civil Service Law §80, New York Public Health Law §18, and race and gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New