Cases

Dunn v City of New York (2022 NY Slip Op 03570) Dunn v City of New York 2022 NY Slip Op 03570 Decided on June 02, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Dunn v City of New York (2022 NY Slip Op 03570) Dunn v City of New York 2022 NY Slip Op 03570 Decided on June 02, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Ju

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 10, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability, and (2) from an interlocutory judgment of the same court, ent

Appeal by the defendant City of New York from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated April 1, 1994. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendants-respondents, for reasons stated by Justice Lerner at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J. O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

LOHIER, Circuit Judge: In this disability discrimination case we consider a provision of the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) that, as relevant to this appeal, defines the term “disability” in a' way that excludes alcoholics who are not “recovered” or “recovering” from the protection of the statute. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(16)(c). Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini brought suit under the NYCHRL and

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Jennifer Louise Lopez (“plaintiff’) moves.for a preliminary injunction in this action brought pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), New York State Civil Rights Law § 79-n (“§ 79-n”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. Plaintiff principally seeks an order dire

OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge. Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, former Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney, claiming that they had been discriminated against based on a perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the Ne

PER CURIAM: These appeals present the important question of whether public-sector unions may intervene into a litigation where the actual parties to that litigation, including a newly-elected mayoral administration, have agreed -to a settlement. The intervenors in this case, a group of police unions, endeavored to challenge the ruling of United States District Judge Shira Schein

OPINION & ORDER ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen, Jamie Nar-idini and Angel Torres (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against the City of New York, former Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and NYPD Sergeant Daniel Sweeney, individually and in his of

OPINION OF THE COURT Richter, J. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the sale on public sidewalks of admission tickets to New York Skyride, a simulated helicopter trip around New York City, requires a general vendor license under sections 20-452 and 20-453 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. We hold that because neither the Skyride experience nor the admission tickets constitutes g

OPINION OF THE COURT Read, J. We are asked on this appeal whether Retirement and Social Security Law § 480 (b) requires the City of New York (the City) to make “Increased-Take-Home-Pay” (ITHP) pension contributions on behalf of New York City police officers and firefighters appointed on or after July 1, 2009. These public employees are tier 3 members of the New York City Police Pension Fund (the PPF) and the

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: Pending before the Court is the motion for partial summary judgment of the Defendant City of New York (“City”) and the individual police officer defendants (“Individual Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff, a New York City police officer, brought suit alleging claims arising from an incident at his home in which he was arrested an

PER CURIAM: Pending before the Court are motions filed on January 30, 2014 by the City of New York (the “City”) seeking limited remand of the above-captioned cases to the District Court for the purpose of exploring settlement. Ligon, No. 13-3123, Dkt. 274; Floyd, No. 13-3088, Dkt. 459. Also pending are a motion to intervene as a party appellant in Floyd v. City of New York, filed by the Sergeants Benevolent A

OPINION OF THE COURT Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground of mootness (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 718 [1980]). Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey.

Gische, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order and judgment of the motion court. The court properly exercised its discretion in granting petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief in aid of arbitration, enjoining respondents from terminating or revoking the release time previously issued to the individual petitioners pursuant to New York City Executive Order No. 75 of 1973 (EO 75) (see CPLR 7502

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellants City of New York et al. seeking a stay of the District Court’s August 12, 2013 remedial order and preliminary injunction (“Remedies Opinion”). It is hereby ORDERED that the District Court’s January 8, 2013 “Opinion and Order,” as well as the August 12, 2013 “Liability Opinion” and “Reme

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. BACKGROUND By letter dated August 27, 2013, defendants (“City”) in the above-captioned actions moved for a stay of this Court’s August 12 Orders pending appellate review.1 On September 6, 2013, plaintiffs opposed the request for a stay.2 Declarations in opposit

Gische, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order and judgment of the motion court. The court properly exercised its discretion in granting petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief in aid of arbitration, enjoining respondents from terminating or revoking the release time previously issued to the individual petitioners pursuant to New York City Executive Order No. 75 of 1973 (EO 75) (see CPLR 7502

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiff Craig Matthews, a member of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Deputy Inspector Jon Bloch, and Lieutenant Mark Sedran (collectively, “defendants” or “the City”). Officer Matthews alleges that defendants violate

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRAA. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION In an Opinion issued today I found the City of New York liable in the Floyd case for violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class because of the way the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) has conducted stops and frisks over the past decade (the “Liability Opinion