Council of the City of N.Y. v. Adams

Full text

Council of the City of N.Y. v Adams 2025 NY Slip Op 31941(U) June 2, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154909/2025 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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.

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2025 04:35 PM] INDEX NO. 154909/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ----------X INDEX NO. 154909/2025 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MOTION DATE 05/23/2025 Plaintiff-Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 For a Judgment Under Article 30 and 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, in his official capacity as Mayor of DECISION + ORDER ON the City of New York, RANDY MASTRO, in his official MOTION capacity as First Deputy Mayor, and the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

Defendants-Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 66, 67, 68, 72, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 Council Members Holden, Vernikov, and Paladino's were read on this motion to/for request for leave to appear as Amici Curiae

Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of June 2, 2025, New

York City Council Members Robert F. Holden, Vickie Paladino, and Inna Vemikov's ("Movants")

application seeking leave to appear as amici curiae is granted.

In deciding the Movants' application, the Court is guided by the factors identified by

Justice Doris Ling-Cohan in her oft cited decision, Kruger v Bloomberg, 1 Misc.3d 192, 198 (Sup.

Ct., New York County 2003). Those factors are:

(1) whether the movant seeking amicus curiae status moves by order to show cause in a timely fashion so as not to interfere with the main action;

(2) whether the affirmation in support indicates the movant's interest in the case at bar;

(3) whether the affirmation in support makes a showing that (a) the parties to the action are not capable of a full presentation of the issues and the movant is able to remedy this deficiency, or (b) the movant invites the court's attention to

154909/2025 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK vs. ADAMS, ERIC ET AL Page 1 of⁴ Motion No. 004

[* 1] 1 of 4

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2025 04:35 P~ INDEX NO. 154909/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2025

arguments which otherwise might escape consideration, or (c) the amicus curiae brief would be of special assistance to the court;

(4) whether the amicus curiae application or status would substantially prejudice the rights of the parties; and

(5) whether the case concerns questions of important public interest.

Here, although the Movants seek leave via order to show cause, their application is late.

The application was filed on May 23, 2025, at 4:25 p.m. The hearing date for which Movants seek

leave to appear as amici is June 3, 2025 - Movants offered little more than a week to any party

who might oppose this application and less time for the Court to decide whether leave is

appropriate. They could have and should have moved for leave alongside the other amici, on May

12, 2025. Therefore, the first factor weights against Movants. Moreover, the application does not

contain any affirmation from the individual council members stating their interest but relies solely

on an affirmation from the Movants' counsel, which is devoid of any probative value (see, e.g.

Berkshire Bank v Fawer, 187 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2020] citing Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49

NY2d 557, 563 [1980]). Thus, the Court finds the second factor also weighs against Movants as

they have failed to personally set forth their interest in this matter.

As to the third factor, the Court finds that the proposed brief largely reiterates positions

maintained by Defendants-Respondents, and there is no showing that the interests and arguments

set forth by the Movants will go unnoticed or fall to the wayside as they align almost identically

with Defendants-Respondents' interests. Therefore, the third factor therefore also weighs against

Movants.

As to the fourth factor, the Court is concerned that granting leave to individuals like

Movants to appear as amici may open the flood gates to any person who claims to have an interest

in the litigation, thereby prejudicing the main parties by having to review constantly and potentially

154909/2025 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK vs. ADAMS, ERIC ET AL Page 2 of4 Motion No. 004

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/02/2025 04:35 P~ INDEX NO. 154909/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/02/2025

Footnotes

[2] of 4 [* 2] oppose applications to appear as amici. It is well known that amici are usually "large organizations or associations that represent a particular interest group." (Deblase v Hill, 83 Misc 3d 1242[A] at *4 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2024] quoting Kruger v Bloomberg, l Misc 3d 192, 196 [Sup Ct, NY County 2003]). On this principle, the Court finds granting leave to these individual council members to appear as amici may prejudice and delay the proceedings. If these individuals are allowed to appear as amici, where will the Court draw the line for other individuals who claim to have an interest or stake in this litigation? The Court finds amicus applications from large organizations representing interest groups are preferred over atomized individuals. Therefore, the fourth factor weighs against the Movants. However, the Court finds the fifth factor weighs in the Movants favor. Given the issues at stake in this litigation, the Court finds the fifth factor weighs so heavily in Movants' favor that the Movants' failure to succeed on the other four factors is not dispositive. The Court is mindful that in some other case, given the numerous factors which weighed against Movants, their application would be denied. However, given the weighty issues before the Court, and this Court has granted leave to various non-profit organizations supporting Plaintiff- Petitioner's request for injunctive relief, the Court, in the interest of justice and ensuring stakeholders on both sides of this litigation are heard, grants the Movants' application. The granting of this application will not change the hearing date of June 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in 60 Centre Street, Room 300. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that the order to show cause seeking leave to appear as Amici Curiae filed by New York City Council Members Robert F. Holden, Vickie Paladino, and Inna Vemikov is granted; and it is further 154909/2025 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK vs. ADAMS, ERIC ET AL Page 3 of4 Motion No. 004

[3] of 4 [* 3] ORDERED that the proposed amicus brief (NYSCEF Doc. 68) shall be deemed filed nunc pro tune upon the service of a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry on all parties via NYSCEF; and it is further ORDERED that within one day of entry, counsel for Movants shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 6/2/2025 DATE : MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED x NON-FINAL DISPOSITION x GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION : SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE : INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE 154909/2025 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK vs. ADAMS , ERIC ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 004

[4] of 4 [* 4]