From:

Sent Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:45 PM

To:
Cc Saki Knafo'
Subject: RE: From a fact checker at the New York Times Magazine
Attachments: PPH.pdf; PPHDismissalOrder.pdf

Importance: High

Frankly, we could care less about this legal fiction. This article is obviously from the point of view of the fraud hustlers
whose falsehoods have been exposed including fired NYPD police officer Manny Gomez.

I only responded to give your publication an opportunity to stop this legal fiction.

39. PPH affidavit. I will attach it again.

40. I responded. You will hear more about it with our Terrell's further civil rights litigation.

41. I gave you a response. I will not release Terrell's personnel records but, you can rest assured, he wasn't disciplined.

As I said earlier, proceed with caution. This BS referendum on Terrell is going to backfire.

Thank you.

ERIC SANDERS ,ESQ

THE 7(w: LSO teN t

SANDERS 30 Wall Stroet. 8th Floor

New York; NY 10005
FIRM,P.c. B: 212.652-2182 F: 212-652-2783

0000

From: Milliniiii@nytimes.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:44 PM
To: Eric Sanders, Esq.
Cc: Saki Knafo
Subject: Re: From a fact checker at the New York limes Magazine

Thanks so much, Eric. I have a couple follow-up questions:

39. I don't see the Pedro affidavit you mentioned in your response to #6. Is there another document you meant to
attach?

40. Regarding your response to #35, above, just to be clear: when you say these claims are "mischaracterized," do you
mean that it is a mischaracterization to say that the department found him guilty of two counts sexual harassment and

1
that he plead to a third? Or that it is a mischaracterization to write that he was found guilty of saying specifically the
statements in quotes and placing his arm around the individual?

41. Regarding your response to #37, above: Can you send me any documents showing that CCRB investigation was
rejected by the Internal Affairs Bureau, and/or that Detective Terrell was exonerated?

Also, just to be clear, these questions are for fact-checking purposes, to make sure the reporting is as fair and accurate
as possible, and to give you a chance to comment before publication.

Thanks again,

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:37 AM rote:

`if you require anymore documents. I will send them to you. Thank you.

ERIC SANDERS ,ESQ

THE Aritat.vre 6 covilsavit ijo

SANDERS 30Wait Sweet, 8th MO'

New York, NY 10005
FIRM,P.c. 8:212.652-2782 F:212-652.2783

0000

From:;WNW nytimes.com>
Sent: e nes ay,January 16, 2019 10:32 PM
To: Eric Sanders, Esq.
Subject: Re: From a fact checker at the New York Times Magazine

Hi Eric

Since Saki's article closes this week, I wanted to send you a list of the details of claims in his reporting, for you to
confirm or correct. This a chance to correct any inaccuracies in Saki's reporting, and to respond to claims about
Detective Terrell made by people Saki has interviewed.

Please send me your responses by 10 am Friday, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Many thanks
in advance.

2
Please confirm or correct the following:

1. Detective Terrell first met Jessica Perez, the mother of Pedro Hernandez, a few years ago, when Jessica's sons began
having trouble with the authorities. (True. Terrell met Ms. Perez many years ago because her son Jesswill who is
currently serving time for Murder in the Second Degree used to terrorize people in and around the area. Jesswill was
on various law enforcement agency radars including the United States Postal Inspectors because of the number of
robberies and grand larcenies aka 'Mailbox Fishing' he committed. In fact, Ms. Perez even met with NYPD personnel
including Terrell to try and change the behavior of Jesswill. Unfortunately, it did not work. Part of this information was
already reported to The News and Post)

2. On one occasion, Detective Terrell called her at home and asked her to bring some "Spanish food" to the precinct.
(Laughable and absolutely false)

3. On another occasion, Detective Terrell drove his car alongside Jessica and her mother and said he would "break
into" her, following by him laughing and driving away. (Laughable and absolutely false)

4. Jessica approached Detective Terrell at the precinct and, in front of another officer, told him. to leave her alone.
(Laughable and absolutely false)

S. After Jessica approached Detective Terrell at the precinct, she began to see him in the lobby of her building, where
he would talk to her neighbors. (Laughable and absolutely false)

6. In a lawsuit, Detective Terrell says he never had any "personal involvement" with Jessica. (This is further supported
by a subsequent affidavit filed by Pedro Hernandez's potential civil rights lawyer. All legal claims were later dismissed)

7. On the night of the shooting for which Pedro Hernandez was later charged, Detective Terrell interrogated Shawn
Nardoni in the 42nd Precinct. (Laughable and absolutely false. Nardoni's own deposition testimony is completely in
support these claims are false because he says he hasn't had contact with him since the 6th Grade. His case was
subsequently dismissed)

8. During the interrogation, Detective Terrell showed Nardoni a picture of a suspect for the shooting, and Nardoni said
he had never seen the suspect before. In response, Detective Terrell tried to persuade Nardoni that the person in the
photograph was the shooter, and threatened to punch Nardoni's head into the wall if he didn't agree. (Laughable and
absolutely false. Nardoni's own deposition testimony is completely in support these claims are false because he says he
hasn't had contact with him since the 6th Grade. His case was subsequently dismissed)

3
9. In December 2016, the NYPD took Detective Terrell out of his job at the 42nd Precinct and transferred him to a job
at a Manhattan courthouse, where he escorted prisoners. (True, having nothing to do with Pedro Hernandez or related
false allegations)

10. Detective Terrell was transferred as the NYPD investigated him for a domestic incident unrelated to his policework.
(True, having nothing to do with Pedro Hernandez or related false allegations)

U. William Stevens's lawyer filed a notice of claim detailing allegations against Detective Terrell. (True, these false
allegations were never pursued because he pled guilty to Robbery in the Second Degree and is serving time in state
prison)

12. At one point in 2016, Detective Terrell chased down William Stevens after Stevens had been fighting on the street,
handcuffed him, and drove him to a deserted street. In the car, Terrell repeatedly hit Stevens in the face and the ribs,
telling Stevens that he should have identified Pedro Hernandez in some crimes that Stevens had been asked about.
(Laughable absolutely false, these false allegations were never pursued because he pled guilty to Robbery in the Second
Degree and is serving time in state prison)

13. At the time of his conference all with members of the press, Detective Terrell was working in the Manhattan
courthouse, escorting prisoners between their cells and the courtroom. (True)

14. On the press call, Detective Terrell said that he didn't care if "bad guys" don't like him, and that his job is to make
sure the good people in the 42nd Precinct can go to work and come home every day. (True)

15. Detective Terrell is in his 40s. (True)

16. In a later interview with Saki, Detective Terrell said he had spent much of his childhood in Bedford-
Stuyvesant. (True)

17. Detective Terrell told Saki that when he was a child and there was a shooting in his neighborhood, his mother
would hide him and his brother in a closet and push a refrigerator in front of the door. (True)
18. Detective Terrell told Saki that many of his childhood friends were murdered. (True)

19. Detective Terrell told Saki that when he was a child, he didn't see the police as protectors or allies, and didn't like
the way they treated black people. (True)

20. Detective Terrell told Saki that during his policework, he had sometimes had fights on the street when he tried to
restrain someone or telling someone to back away and they refused. When he said this, Eric jumped into the
conversation to correct him, saying that cops don't fight, but they do use physical force. (True)

21. Detective Terrell was a high school basketball player. (True but he also told Saki, he played through college up to
the professional level overseas)

22. Detective Terrell told Saki that he'd come to think of policing the way he used to think of sports, and described it as
a cat and mouse game where sometimes the cops win and sometimes the bad guys win. He also said that he likes to
compete. (True)

23. Detective Terrell told Saki that he makes more arrests than many other members of the NYPD. (True)

24. Detective Terrell averages 62 arrests annually. (Unconfirmed but, it's not in dispute he makes many arrests)

25. After a few years in the 42nd Precinct, Detective Terrell was assigned to the position of field intelligence officer,
where he and others were responsible for gathering information on gangs and crews. (True)

26. Detective Terrell told Saki that he and others as an investigative technique began monitoring social-media
conversations of persons the NYPD had identified as potential gang members.

27. In 2015, through his investigative techniques, Detective Terrell along with other law enforcement were responsible
for arresting and convicting the Lyman Place Crew, and the Bronx DA singled him out for praise. Shortly after, he was
promoted to detective. (True)

5
28. Detective Terrell told Saki that after he was made detective he and other law enforcement personnel started
investigating the Hill Top Crew. During the development of the investigation, it was later learned that Pedro 'BigBank
Pablo' Hernandez is the leader. The goal of law enforcement was to take down the Hill Top Crew implicated in a
number of crimes in an around the area.

29. Detective Terrell told Saki that despite his public image, Pedro 'BigBank Pablo' Hernandez is a vicious kid. When
Saki asked for details, Detective Terrell said he couldn't elaborate because of ongoing investigations. (True)

30. Detective Terrell told Saki that many of his accusers have been trying to destroy his career to avoid him eventually
arresting them for their crimes. (True)

31. Detective Terrell told Saki that by spreading the stories of his accusers, Manny Gomez a fired NYPD cop with an ax
to grind, is perpetuating a fraud on the public. (This is proved with a murder case in Queens. I've added the Sirois
hearing decision)

32. Detective Terrell told Saki that Manny Gomez isn't working for free, and mentioned that he had referred people
like Hernandez, Stevens, Nardoni, Floyd and others to the law firm Scola and Nwokoro, which filed false lawsuits on
their behalf. And that Manny would get paid if the city settled lawsuits they brought. (True. See the attached affidavit
filed by Pedro Hernandez's potential civil rights lawyer)

33. In April 2018, Detective Terrell filed a sprawling lawsuit against the city, the police commissioner, and many other
parties related to the accusations against him. In the lawsuit, Detective Terrell argues that he NYPD abandoned him, in
part because of his race, and accused the city of New York of encouraging people to bring frivolous lawsuits against the
police by settling too many claims without properly investigating them. (True, throughout his career, Terrell was never
found liable. Nor determined to be liable despite the numerous false lawsuits filed against him. Please review updated
amended federal complaint)

34. The CCRB has received more than 90 complaints about Detective Terrell, many of which were found to be
exonerated or unsubstantiated. (Only 2 were substantiated without penalty)

35. In 2012, the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau found Detective Terrell guilty of wrongfully placing his arm around and
making inappropriate remarks to an individual under the age of 18 known to the department. He told an individual or
individuals under the age of 18 known to the department that "you are too pretty to be getting into trouble," "I want to
give you a kiss," and pled guilty to the accusation that he told an individual under the age of 18 known to the
department "If you were a little older I would marry you." (False, this is being mischaracterized, laughable)

6
36. As discipline for the above findings, Detective Terrell forfeited 15 vacation days. (False, he was penalized for a
mischaracterization which will be the subject of litigation he files against the City of New York for unfair discipline)

37. In a complaint submitted to the CCRB, Detective Terrell was accused of searching a man's home without showing a
warrant. When CCRB investigators looked into the accusation, Detective Terrell told them that he was sure the man
had read the warrant because he had asked questions about it. Two other police officers who were there gave a
conflicting account, and CCRB investigators learned that the man was legally blind. As a result of this investigation, the
CCRB found that Detective Terrell had made a false official statement, and turned the case over to the NYPD. (True, the
biased CCRB investigation of which was rejected by the Internal Affairs Bureau was a dispute about whether the
warrant was shown. Terrell was exonerated and received an instruction to ensure there's no confusion about the police
obligation to show an active warrant when requested subject to safety considerations)

38. When Saki brought up these claims and others in his interview with Detective Terrell, the interview was abruptly
ended by Detective Terrell's lawyer. (Yes, because Saki tried to sandbag Terrell. This isn't a referendum about Terrell's
life. Frankly, every baseless allegation and lawsuit against Terrell have been dismissed except Jerome Roman, Salim
Wilson and the last Perdo 'BigBank Pablo' Hernandez lawsuit in Bronx Supreme. Oh and those are in the process of
being dismissed too because he had NO PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT with these gang members or the other fraud
hustlers against him including Gomez, the lawyers, I-Team and Pix11. I suggest you proceed VERY carefully with this
matter. It's nothing more than a false fairy tale promoted another fraud hustler. Throughout our contact with Saki
initiated by him, he was provided documentary evidence to support Terrell's claims these are nothing more than fairy
tales promoted by fraud hustlers but, he chose to ignore this information. Saki is nothing more than another fraud
hustler trying to sell BS to the public through the Grey Lady and other reputable news organizations at the expense of
Terrell's reputation)

Many thanks,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:13 PM n imes.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Sanders,

I'm fact checking Saki Knafo's article on private investigator Manny Gomez for the magazine, and was hoping to talk
with you to confirm some details about the accusations made against David Terrell. (I've copied my colleague
on this email, who is also fact checking the article and may have some questions for you.)

7
My questions would not be for attribution to you, and only to make sure that the details Saki is reporting are
accurate. I imagine they would take about 30 minutes or so. Is there a time on Tuesday or Wednesday when you'd be
available for a call?

Looking forward to hearing from you, and many thanks.

The New York Times Magazine //

The New York Times Magazine

The New York Times Magazine

 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 29-1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
P.P.H., an infant, by his mother and natural guardian, Case No.: 1:17-cv-06170 (PKC)
JESSICA PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER AFFIDAVIT

LUIS REYES, DETECTIVE DANIEL BRADY,
DETECTIVE DAVID TERRELL, and DAVID
SLOTT,

Defendants.
X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss;
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

MICHAEL A. FRUHLING, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law within the State of New York, and

am a Member of the law offices of Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, P.P.H.

As such, I am fully familiar with the facts, circumstances and prior proceedings had herein.

2. I submit this Affidavit in support of the motion of Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C.,

to be relieved as Plaintiff's counsel, and providing Plaintiff, P.P.H., 45 days to retain a new

attorney should the instant application be granted.

3. P.P.H. signed a retainer agreement with this office on April 10, 2018 to investigate

several potential cases involving his arrest and detainment by the Defendant CITY OF NEW

YORK. On that same date, a letter was faxed to Plaintiffs counsel, Nwokoro & Scola, Esqs.,

regarding our office taking over the handling of the potential cases involving P.P.H., including the

instant action.

4. Despite our request for a copy of his file, the file has not been turned over.

1
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 29-1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 2 of 5

Moreover, a request to change attorney was executed by this office, but has not been executed by

the Nwokoro Firm. Thus, the consent has not been filed with this Court.

5. As the Court is aware, the within action was brought on behalf of P.P.H., by his

"prior" counsel, Nwokoro & Scola, Esqs., for violation of the then infant's civil rights stemming

from an arrest that took place on June 7, 2016, and his subsequent detainment (A copy of the

Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit A).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. The action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint in the United States

District Court, Southern District of New York, on August 15, 2017. An Answer was interposed

by the Defendants on May 29, 2018. (A copy of the Answer is annexed hereto as Exhibit B).

7. It is unclear what discovery has taken place since that date, as this office is not in

possession of Plaintiffs file due to a dispute over a request of refundable disbursements in the

amount of $44,574.00, much of which relates from services ostensibly rendered by Manny

Gomez, a private investigator with Black Ops Private Investigators, Inc., who, upon information

and belief, is also a client of the Nwokoro Firm.

8. With respect to this disbursement, we were advised by Jessica Perez, the mother of

P.P.H., that she already paid Manny Gomez for his investigative services. As a result of this

dispute, outgoing counsel, Nwokoro & Scola, Esqs., has refused to turn over the file and has failed

to sign the consent to change attorney.

9. On May 30, 2018, the parties, including outgoing counsel, John Scola, Esq.,

appeared for a Case Management Conference. At that time, this office executed a consent to

change attorney and provided the signed copy to Plaintiffs "prior" counsel, Nwokoro & Scola,

Esqs. To date, we have not received the executed copy of the consent to change attorney.

2
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 29-1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 3 of 5

10. Notably, at that conference this office was provided with certain discovery

materials by Defendants' counsel related to the June 7, 2016 arrest of the Plaintiff, P.P.H. The

information provided by the defense failed to contain information that William Stevens was the

complaining witness leading to the arrest of P.P.H. Likewise, the information provided by the

defense failed to contain information that Detective David Terrell was involved in the initial arrest

of P.P.H. on June 7, 2016.

11. Importantly, the basis of Plaintiff's complaint in the instant matter was that the June

7, 2016 arrest came as a result of the complaint filed by William Stevens at the behest of Detective

David Tyrell.

12. After a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff s

instant lawsuit, your Affiant's office determined that it could no longer zealously represent the

Plaintiff, P.P.H.

13. The reasons behind this application were discussed with the Plaintiff. We are

requesting that Plaintiff be given the opportunity to consult with new counsel.

14. The rules governing withdrawing as counsel can be found in Local Civil Rule 1.4,

which states:

An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a

party . . . may not withdraw from a case without leave of the
court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only
upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory
reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of
the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar.

15. In determining whether an application to withdraw should be granted the Court is

expected to analyze two factors: the reasons for withdrawal and the impact of the withdrawal on

the timing of the proceeding. "Whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel 'falls to

3
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 29-1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 4 of 5

the sound discretion of the trial court.'" Stair v. Calhoun, 722 F. Supp. 2d 258, 264 (E.D.N.Y.

2010) (quoting In re Albert, 277 B.R. 38, 47 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)).

16. As this Court stated long ago, "when an attorney loses faith in his cause, he should

either retire from the case or dismiss the action." Moolick v. Natwest Bank, N.A., 1996 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 10296 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) citing and quoting Larimer v. Smith, 130 Cal. App. 98, 19 P.2d

825, 827. Moreover, "where an attorney desires to withdraw from a case, he will in most cases be

allowed to do so." Bijan Karimian v. Time Equities, Inc.. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51916 (S.D.N.Y.

2011).

17. Here, our firm has determined that the factual basis surrounding the 42 U.S.C. §

1983 allegations in the instant matter would be difficult to prove.

18. The Rules of Professional Conduct § 1.16(c)(1) reads in pertinent part: "a lawyer

may withdraw from representing a client when (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without

material or adverse effect on the interests of the client.

19. In the case at bar, the matter has not yet been certified as ready for trial, and

discovery is in its infancy. Our office has communicated with defense counsel regarding an

extension of time to respond to the Case Management Order initial discovery disclosures, and he

has given his consent. Moreover, defense counsel was advised that this office was filing the instant

application to be relieved as cousin.

20. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff will have ample opportunity to retain new

counsel.

21. Even when withdrawal is otherwise permitted... a lawyer shall

take steps, to the extent reasonably practicable to avoid foreseeable

prejudice to the rights of the client, allowing time for employment
of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to
which the client is entitled....and complying with applicable laws

4
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 29-1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 5 of 5

and rules.

22. Again, Plaintiff can accomplish the above without undue prejudice.

23. It is respectfully submitted that the application of Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C.

should be granted. In this respect, Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C., has done everything within its

power to ensure that no prejudice arises to Plaintiff, should the within application be granted.

24. Finally, your Affiant respectfully requests that service of a copy of this Order and

a copy of the papers upon which the same is granted be served by certified mail - return receipt

requested upon the last known address of the Plaintiff, P.P.H.

25. No other application for the relief requested herein has been made to this Court or

any other Court.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Order to

Show Cause to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, P.P.H., be granted in its entirety, and granting

Plaintiff, P.P.H., 45 days to secure new counsel should your Afflant's application be granted,

together with such other and further relief as this Court naardiem just proper.

MICHAEL A UHLING

Sworn to before me this

/1V-day of June,
YOLANDA MORALES
IkANY Public. State of New tit
No. 01M05053947
theillied in New Vett Count/
Public elemission Dotes Aiwa '-

5
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 43 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
P.P.H. an infant, by his mother and natural
guardian, JESSICA PEREZ,

Plaintiff, 17-cv-6170 (PKC)

-against- ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.
x

CASTEL, U.S.D.J.

In an Order of November 15, 2018, this Court directed, in part, as follows:

PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO FULLY AND COMPLETELY RESPOND TO

DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DECEMBER 3, 2018. FAILURE TO
COMPLY WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
UNDER RULES 37(b)(2) AND 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P., AND THE INHERENT
POWER OF THIS COURT.

(Doc. 41) (emphasis in original). Despite this Court's warning, plaintiff has not provided answers to

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and has not

requested an extension of time from either defendants or the Court. (Doc. 42). Defendants now

move this Court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P., and the inherent power of the Court. Defendants' motion is granted.

Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P, provides that where "the plaintiff fails to prosecute or

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any

claim against it." Dismissal for failure to prosecute is considered "a 'harsh remedy' that should

`be utilized only in extreme situations.'" Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 576 (2d Cir. 2009)

(quoting Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1027 (2d Cir. 1993)). In weighing dismissal,
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 43 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 3

the Court should consider whether: "(1) the plaintiffs failure to prosecute caused a delay of

significant duration; (2) plaintiff was given notice that further delay would result in dismissal; (3)

defendant was likely to be prejudiced by further delay; (4) the need to alleviate court calendar

congestion was carefully balanced against plaintiffs right to an opportunity for a day in court;

and (5) . . . the efficacy of lesser sanctions." U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Systems, Inc., 375

F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004). "[N]one of the five factors is separately dispositive . . . ." LeSane

v. Hall's Security Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 2001).

In this case, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, plaintiff's inaction has

caused substantial delay. This case was originally filed on August 17, 2017, but plaintiff did not

serve the complaint on defendants until February 21, 2018. (Doc. 42). The case is now over a

year old and fact discovery closed on December 28, 2019, yet plaintiff has not provided initial

disclosures, has not responded to discovery requests, has not requested an extension of time to

complete discovery, and has made no other discernable attempt to engage in discovery. (Does.

34, 42).

Second, plaintiff was given clear notice in this Court's November 15 Order that

failure to respond to defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Third, this Court "presume[s]" prejudice to the defendants based on plaintiff s

"unreasonable delay," for which plaintiff has offered no excuse or justification. See Shannon v.

General Elec. Co., 186 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 1999). Moreover, plaintiffs delay "increases the

likelihood that evidence in support of [defendants'] position will be lost and that discovery and

trial will be made more difficult" especially since the incident underlying this litigation occurred

over two years ago on June 7, 2016. See id.

-2-
 Case 1:17-cv-06170-PKC Document 43 Filed 01/03/19 Page 3 of 3

Fourth, the Court has balanced its own interest in managing its docket with the

plaintiff's interest in receiving a day in court. The age of this case paired with plaintiffs

apparent lack of desire to participate in discovery suggests that plaintiff does not have a strong

desire to be heard on the merits of this case. Meanwhile, plaintiff's inaction takes the Court's

time and attention away from litigants who are diligent and express a keen interest in having

their claims promptly decided on the merits. Therefore, on balance, this factor also weighs in

favor of dismissal.

Fifth, lesser sanctions will likely not be efficacious because plaintiff has not

complied in the face this Court's clear and unambiguous warning that dismissal will occur if

plaintiff does not respond to defendants' discovery requests. There is no reason to believe that a

lesser sanction would secure plaintiffs compliance.

Pursuant to this Court's November 15, 2018 Order, the case is dismissed. The

Clerk is directed to terminate all motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the

case.

SO ORDERED.

P. Kevin Castel
United States District Judge

Dated: New York, New York

January 3, 2019

-3-