In 2023, private plaintiffs and the State of New York reached a settlement agreement with the City of New York, the New York City Police Department and its leadership, and NYPD officers in their individual and official capacities regarding police actions and practices in response to demonstrations that occurred in the summer of 2020. After over a year of intense negotiations, the parties reached an agreement for the NYPD to alter its practices for policing protests and demonstrations and submitted a stipulation of settlement.
On February 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement as a consent decree over the objections of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the PBA argued that the district court erred by (1) granting plaintiffs’ Rule 41(a)(2) motion over the objections of a non-settling defendant; (2) approving the consent decree without considering the impact of the settlement on officer safety; and (3) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected each of these arguments and affirmed the district court’s decision.
On the first issue, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2). The Court emphasized that the rule permits dismissal at the plaintiff’s request unless the defendant would suffer “plain legal prejudice,” which goes beyond the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. The PBA failed to demonstrate such prejudice, as it had not asserted any legal claims or counterclaims that would be forfeited by dismissal.
Regarding the approval of the consent decree, the Court applied the standard from Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., which requires the decree to be “fair and reasonable” and not disserve the public interest. The PBA argued that the district court erred by not independently assessing the decree’s impact on officer safety and by deferring too heavily to the government’s judgment. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the district court had thoroughly evaluated the decree’s terms and found no evidence of collusion. The Court also emphasized that the PBA had ample opportunity to present evidence and objections, including testimony from its expert, who argued that certain policies in the settlement were impractical and unsafe. The district court considered this evidence but ultimately found it unpersuasive. The Court held that the PBA had received all the process it was due and that the district court’s approval of the consent decree was proper.
The PBA also contended that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing before approving the settlement. The Second Circuit disagreed, noting that the decision to hold a hearing is discretionary and that the record was sufficiently developed through written submissions, including expert testimony.
People v. de Blasio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6393* (2d Cir. 2025).