Brad H. v. City of New York…

Summary

The Court held that the settlement agreement’s five‑year term began on the implementation date of June 3, 2003, because monitoring could not lawfully commence before that date, so the agreement did not terminate until May 25‑26, 2009 and the plaintiffs’ motion was timely. The Appellate Division’s decision was reversed. Justice Pigott dissented, arguing that monitoring began on May 19, 2003 and the motion was untimely.