Cases

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge: On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff Heidi Husser commenced this action against the New York-City Department of Education. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) By Second Amended Complaint filed September 6, 2013, Plaintiff named John Shea and John O’Connell as additional defendants. (Second Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 16.) Plaintiff brings claims of

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AN ALISA TORRES, District Judge. In this action, Plaintiff, Delroy Gis-combe, alleges claims of retaliation for engaging in protected activities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”). Defendant moves for summary judgmen

808 F.Supp.2d 569 (2011) Theodore SMITH, Plaintiff, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Joel I. Klein, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Employees of the New York City Department of Education, Richard Condon, Gerald P. Conroy, Individually and in their capacities as Members of the New York City Special Commissioner of Investigation, Defendants. No. 06 CV 4613(NRB). United State

The court properly found that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by adequate evidence, was rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567-568 [1st Dept 2008]). The sustained specifications were supported by the injured student’s testimony, along with the written statements from other student witnesses who corroborated the injured student’s version of ev

The court properly found that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by adequate evidence, was rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567-568 [1st Dept 2008]). The sustained specifications were supported by the injured student’s testimony, along with the written statements from other student witnesses who corroborated the injured student’s version of ev

22-1801-cv(L) New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2022 Argued: February 8, 2023 Decided: November 13, 2024 Amended: January 10, 2025 Nos. 22-1801,

22-1801-cv(L) New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2022 Argued: February 8, 2023 Decided: November 13, 2024 Nos. 22-1801, 22-1876 NEW YORKERS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, INC., GENNAR

City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 25011) [*1] City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 25011 Decided on January 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Patel, J. Published b

City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 25011) [*1] City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 25011 Decided on January 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Patel, J. Published b

Reichman v City of New York (2020 NY Slip Op 00631) Reichman v City of New York 2020 NY Slip Op 00631 Decided on January 29, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu

Philius v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 03161) Philius v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 03161 Decided on May 2, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant

MEMORANDUM & ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiff Miriam Zambrano-Lamhaoui (“Plaintiff’) brought suit against the Defendants, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and state and city anti-discrimination laws. (Am. Compl. (Docket Entry # 2).) Defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Fed

19-3591, 19-3595 New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2019 Argued: March 2, 2020 Decided: August 4, 2020 Docket Nos. 19-3591, 19-3595 STATE OF N

de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (2025 NY Slip Op 25008) [*1] de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. 2025 NY Slip Op 25008 Decided on January 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Ally, J.

de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (2025 NY Slip Op 25008) [*1] de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. 2025 NY Slip Op 25008 Decided on January 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Ally, J.

de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (2025 NY Slip Op 25008) [*1] de Blasio v New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. 2025 NY Slip Op 25008 Decided on January 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Ally, J.

OPINION DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge. Plaintiff Maria Villar (“Plaintiff’ or “Vil-lar”), a Hispanic female, brings this employment discrimination action against the City of New York, Deputy Inspector Michael Yanosik, and Lieutenant John P. McGovern (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge: This case arises from allegations by the Plaintiff Nancy Falcon (the “Plaintiff’) that her current employer the Defendant City University of New York (“CUNY”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VU”) by engaging in gender discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliating against her

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: Plaintiff Jessenia Guzman brought this employment discrimination action against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and various individual defendants, alleging that Defendants discriminated against her based on her race, color, gender, and pregnancy, retaliated against her, and created a hostile work

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CASTEL, District Judge. Plaintiff Hyman Brodt, who represents himself pro se, brings thirteen claims of religious discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York (the “City”), its Department of Information Technology *565& Telecommunications (the “IT Department”) and two individual d