Litigation Against the City for the 2.25% DifferentialMarch 20, 2019
On September 5, 2019, the DEA and the City were in Court for a discovery conference with the Judge. On September 12th, the City provided a letter to the Court outlining what they are willing to turn over and what they’re not. The DEA must respond by September 19, 2019. The City also perfected their appeal with the Appellate Division to overturn the lower Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The DEA must answer by October 2, 2019, and oral arguments before the Appellate Division are scheduled for October 29th.
Here’s the backstory: On June 17, 2019, the Appellate Division denied the City’s motion to stop discovery in the lower Court, so the City must now turn over all documents as we requested. The Appellate Court has not yet ruled on the City’s motion to dismiss.
Here’s the backstory: The DEA filed our answer. The City replied. We awaited the Appellate Court’s decision.
Here’s more backstory: The City filed a motion to stay any discovery in this case. The DEA had to reply in opposition by May 1, 2019. The City’s reply to our opposition was due May 3, 2019.
Here’s more backstory: The City filed an appeal with the Appellate Court. On February 28, 2019, the DEA was in Manhattan Supreme Court. The City was ordered to commence discovery. The disclosure began on March 14 and concluded by July 31st.
Here’s more backstory: On January 29, 2019, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed issued his decision on our Promissory Estoppel case seeking the 2.25% Differential. Judge Reed ruled in our favor, denying the City’s motion to dismiss. By denying the City’s motion, Judge Reed breathed life into our lawsuit seeking the 2.25% differential. The City had to answer the complaint; and the preliminary conference before Judge Reed Thursday, February 21, 2019.
Here’s more backstory: On July 21, 2017, the DEA and other members of the Uniformed Contract Coalition filed a lawsuit in Supreme Court against the City of New York regarding the PBA differential.