On May 10, 2016, four individuals who were arrested in the Bronx for low-level misdemeanors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the State of New York's Unified Court Systems for failure to provide the constitutionally guaranteed rights to a speedy trial and due process. The plaintiffs sought class certification for people similarly affected by the structural and systemic court delays in the Bronx Criminal Court.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Bronx Criminal Court’s inordinate delays violated the plaintiffs’ Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as New York state’s criminal procedure laws, which require prosecutors to be ready for trial within 90, 60, or 30 days of the commencement of a criminal action depending on the category of misdemeanors. According to the complaint, although there were over 45,000 misdemeanor arraignments in 2015, only 98 went on trial. Further, the few people who managed to exercise their right to trial waited on average 642 days for nonjury and 827 for a jury trial, and many people ended up taking plea bargains and giving up their right to a trial because of the Bronx Criminal Court’s overall dysfunctional administration.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Bronx Defenders and private counsel, sought declaratory and equitable relief. The case was assigned to District Judge George B. Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

On June 30, 2016, the State moved to dismiss because none of the four plaintiffs had cases pending in Bronx Criminal Court and thus lacked standing to sue. The State further argued that the Court should abstain from reviewing the case since the plaintiffs’ claims involved the state judiciary, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. On December 22, 2016, Judge Daniels granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. First, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing and also dismissed Governor Cuomo as a defendant. But the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on abstention grounds because the judge could contemplate granting declaratory and injunctive relief that would not necessarily interfere with or restructure the state court’s lawful authority. The Court also rejected the argument that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim after it found that one of the plaintiffs waited 877 days between his arraignment and a final resolution. The Court allowed the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint. 2016 WL 7489098.

On January 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 8, 2017, the parties met with Judge George B. Daniels and interim pretrial conference was scheduled. The plaintiffs also filed for class certification. While the court was deliberating whether to grant the plaintiff's request for class certification, the parties agreed to stay the litigation while they sought an enforceable settlement agreement over the course of the next six months. After a series of stay extensions, the parties were able to agree to a settlement hearing before a magistrate judge. The court referred the case to Magistrate judge Gabriel Gorenstein on February 12, 2018.

On August 9, 2018, the court entered the parties settlement agreement. The parties agreed to stay the litigation for four years, but the plaintiffs retained the right to reinstate the litigation at any time. If the plaintiffs reinstate litigation within four years, they retain all rights to attorneys fees. However, in the event the plaintiffs do not reinstate within the four year period, their case will be dismissed without prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. In exchange, the defendants agreed to continue to decrease the number of misdemeanor cases pending for more than one year, though the parties did not agree to a legally binding goal. To ensure compliance, the defendants gave the plaintiffs access to records including activity reports, criminal records data, and reports relating to court delay, trial capacity, and the allocation of judicial resources by New York City. This settlement agreement did not include an admission of guilt from the defendants.

The case is ongoing, and as of March 2019 the plaintiffs have not sought to reinstate the litigation.

MJ Koo - 03/27/2017
Keagan Potts - 03/20/2019


compress summary