Cases

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. *1240Dkt. # 122. The Court held oral argument on May 1, 2018, after which the Court directed the parties to submit additional briefing.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Jessica L. Medina appeals from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") Commissioner's final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits, filed pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and her application for

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered July 16, 2013, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2012, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, unanimously dismissed, as moot. The Court of Appeals has recently clarified the scope of People v Ventura (17 NY3d 675 [2011]), holding that while that case prohibits the appellate divisi

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered November 14, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of three years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the pleas as to both counts vacated, and the matter re

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2012, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered February 22, 1991, unanimously affirmed. The court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without holding a hearing (see People v Samandarov, 13 NY3d 433, 439-440 [2009]). Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), requiring counsel to

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2012, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered February 22, 1991, unanimously affirmed. The court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without holding a hearing (see People v Samandarov, 13 NY3d 433, 439-440 [2009]). Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), requiring counsel to

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J.), entered on or about April 19, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered January 3, 2001, unanimously affirmed. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without holding a hearing (see People v Samandarov, 13 NY3d 433, 439

*1399 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated May 10, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Daniel Schecter which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as a

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA), generally exempts from its requirements “church plans”—employee-benefit plans established and maintained by churches for their employees. ERISA also extends that church-plan exemption to so-called principal-purpose organizations. A principal

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 16, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without *611costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2013, which denied defendants’ motio

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 16, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without *611costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2013, which denied defendants’ motio

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

628 F.Supp.2d 52 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, v. Jaime MEDINA, et al., Defendants. Criminal No. 06-232 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 24, 2009. *53 Pleasant S. Brodnax, III, Cary Clennon, Joseph Roll Conte, Law Offices of J.R. Conte, P.L.L.C., John Anthony Briley, Jr., Cynthia Katkish, H. Heat

MEMORANDUM ** Daniel Medina-Landei, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for suspension of deportation. We grant the petition for review and remand. The IJ denied relief for failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship and period of co

{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Medina, appeals from the judgment of the Medina Municipal Court that determined that Medina City Ordinance, Section 513.03(A), *Page 103 is in conflict with R.C. 2925.11(A) and thus in violation of Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. We reverse and rema

496 F.Supp.2d 1324 (2007) Arnaldo MEDINA and Luz Lopez, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendants. No. 6:06-CV-612-ORL-22UAM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida. Orlando Division. June 15, 2007. *1325 John M. Tamayo, Frost Tamayo Sessums & Aranda, P.A., Bartow, FL, for P

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of creating a disturbance, making threats and a movement violation. The Attorney General has advised