From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. the City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 1, 2002
01 Civ. 4413 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2002)

Opinion

01 Civ. 4413 (LAK)

November 1, 2002


ORDER


Plaintiff moves to enter judgment on an alleged settlement agreement.

Plaintiff contends that the parties agreed to settle this case for $30,000 at a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Francis on May 23, 2002. Six days later, plaintiff's counsel delivered executed settlement papers to the corporation counsel's office. When no response was received by July 29, 2002, he wrote to defense counsel and asked that payment be made promptly. The letter was ignored. On August 28, 2002, the attorneys spoke and, according to plaintiff's counsel, defendants' counsel told him that she had not signed the settlement papers nor taken any steps to process the settlement. Plaintiff's counsel served this motion on September 5, 2002, but the City has failed to respond.

In view of the lack of response by the defendants, the Court is obliged to accept plaintiff's assertion that the parties agreed on May 23, 2002 to settle the case for $30,000. As the settlement was agreed in a conference before Magistrate Judge Francis, there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of N.Y. CPLR § 2104, assuming arguendo that it applies. See, e.g., Elements/Jill Schwartz, Inc. v. Gloriosa Co., No. 01 Civ. 904 (DLC), 2002 WL 57260 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2002); Alvarez v. City of New York, 146 F. Supp.2d 327, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Accordingly, the motion to enforce and enter judgment upon the settlement is granted.

Plaintiff seeks also an award of attorneys' fees with respect to this application. She relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That statute, in the Court's view, is inapplicable here. Section 1988 allows awards of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in federal civil rights actions. While the underlying case here is a federal civil rights action, the motion to enforce the settlement in substance is a contract claim arising under state law. In consequence, Section 1988 has no bearing.

The Clerk shall enter judgment for plaintiff and against defendant The City of New York in the amount of $30,000 together with interest thereon at the statutory rate applicable to federal question claims commencing on the 90th day after May 29, 2002, the date on which the City first was obliged to pay. See N.Y. CPLR § 5003-a. Upon the entry of judgment, the Clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dixon v. the City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 1, 2002
01 Civ. 4413 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2002)
Case details for

Dixon v. the City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ILLYA DIXON, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et ano., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 1, 2002

Citations

01 Civ. 4413 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2002)

Citing Cases

Sorrell v. Inc. Vill. of Lynbrook

For example, in Dixon v. City of New York, the Southern District of New York entered judgment for plaintiff,…

Bey v. City of N.Y.

Id. See also Dixon v. City of New York, 2002 WL 31466762 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2002) (same); contrast Nicaj v.…