Morales v. Restrepo, 2025 WL 1070234, (E.D. New York.2025)[Colombia][Petition granted] [Motion for stay pending appeal denied]

 In Morales v. Restrepo, 2025 WL 1070234, (E.D. New York.2025) the respondent moved to stay the Court’s order granting the petition for return of the parties’ child, L.C., to Colombia. Tthe Court denied the Motion but issued an administrative stay until April 14, 2025, to allow respondent to seek a stay from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Petitioner filed this action against respondent pursuant to the Convention on November 15, 2024, seeking the return of L.C. to Colombia. After a hearing on the Petition, the Court determined that respondent wrongfully retained L.C. in New York on May 16, 2024, in violation of the Convention. Specifically, the Court found that petitioner had established a prima facie case and respondent failed to establish a consent defense. The Court granted the petition, ordered L.C. returned to Colombia, and directed the parties to submit a joint proposed order of return by April 4, 2025. The Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of petitioner on March 31, 2025. Thereafter, the parties filed a letter indicating that they were unable to agree on the mechanics of L.C.’s return to Colombia: petitioner proposed return by April 13, 2025, so that L.C. can attend school at the close of spring break,¹ whereas respondent proposed L.C. return on June 28, 2025, after the conclusion of his academic year in New York. On April 4, respondent moved the Court for a stay to allow respondent time to appeal the Court’s Order. On April 7, 2025, respondent filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 The district court observed that a stay is not “guaranteed” as a matter of right in cases under the Convention, Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 179 (2013), but instead rests within the Court’s discretion, DiMartile v. Hochul, 80 F.4th 443, 456 (2d Cir. 2023). Courts must consider the traditional stay factors in assessing a stay request: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Chafin, 568 U.S. at 179 (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). The “first two of the four factors are the most critical,” and the movant bears the burden to show that a stay is warranted. Tereshchenko v. Karimi, No. 23-cv-02006, 2024 WL 195547, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024) (citing New York v. U.S. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., 974 F.3d 210, 214 (2d Cir. 2020)).  After analyzing the factors the court found that respondent did not establish that the Chafin factors warranted a stay of the Court’s Order pending appeal.