Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Dominick Hotel Gentleman Insulted Muslims At 246 Spring Street Now Case Settles and Seals

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 14 – In February 2020 a mysterious complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Muhammad Miah who had worked as a doorman at the Domenick Hotel complained that "at the end of September 2019, a man, let's call him 'The Gentleman' - perhaps a guest - idled his car directly in front of the hotel."    Soon, according to the complaint, this "Gentleman" uttered "Muslim something" to offend Miah.

 On July 10 SDNY Judge Lewis J. Liman held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it.

  Judge Liman inquired into "the Gentleman," his relationship to the hotel and whether he should be publicly named.

He directed that the hotel file a motion for a protective order to protect it from disclosing the name of the individual identified as 'The Gentleman' in plaintiff's complaint."

 And now, it has been filed, including: "Our firm represents Defendant 246 Spring Street (NY), LLC, d/b/a The Dominick Hotel, erroneously pleaded as The Dominick Hotel, (hereinafter “Defendant”), in the above-referenced matter. As Your Honor may recall, during the July 10, 2020 initial conference counsel for Plaintiff Muhammad Miah (“Plaintiff”) stated his intention to seek to implead an individual as a party in this matter, the identity of whom is in Defendant’s possession... Rule 26 provides that a court may enter a protective order to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense[.]”

 On July 24, Judge Liman to his credit has denied the application - but seemed amenable to a protective order. And now, Judge Liman has issued a protective order - but again to this credit with this provision, applicable to other proceedings in the SDNY including a higher profile "whistleblower" proceeding in which documents submitted are threatened with being withdrawn as if they were never submitted, after having an impact: "13.All persons seeking to file redacted documents or documents under seal with the Court shall follow Rule 2(F) of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. No person may file with Court redacted documents or documents under seal without first seeking leave to file such papers. All persons producing Confidential Discovery Material are deemed to be on notice that the Second Circuit puts limitations on the documents or information that may be filed in redacted form or under seal and that the Court retains discretion not to afford confidential treatment to any Confidential Discovery Material submitted to the Court or presented in connection with any motion, application or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court unless it is able to make the specific findings required by law in order to retain the confidential nature of such material. Notwithstanding its designation, there is no presumption that Confidential Discovery Material will be filed with the Court under seal. The Parties will use their best efforts to minimize such sealing." 

And now on January 14, the mysteriously filed case has just as mysteriously sought to go away: "ORDER: The Court has been informed that the parties have reached a settlement in principle in this case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court's calendar, provided the application to restore the action is made within thirty (30) days of this Order. Any application to reopen filed after thirty (30) days from the date of this Order may be denied solely on that basis. Any pending motions are DISMISSED as moot, and all conferences and deadlines are CANCELLED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/14/2021)." Watch this site.

The case is, or was, Miah v. The Dominick Hotel, 20-cv-1172 (Liman)


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for