Cases

24-1785-cv Galloway v. County of Nassau 1 United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit 3 4 AUGUST TERM 2024 5 No. 24-1785-cv 6 7 8 JOSIAH GALLOWAY, 9 Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, 10 11 v. 12 13 COUNTY OF NASSAU, DETECTIVE MATTHEW ROSS, (SHIELD #834), 14

786 F.Supp.2d 545 (2011) Yasmeen MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF NASSAU, Nassau County Police Department, Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, Detective Christopher J. Ferro, in his individual and official capacities, and Tony Venturella, in his individual and official capacities, John Doe, in his individual and official capacities, and Jeff Eiseman, in his individual and official capacities, Defen

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 28, 1988 {People v Galloway, 138 AD2d 735 [1988]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 19, 1985. Ordered that the application is denied. The.appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the

762 F.Supp.2d 482 (2010) Juarez F. BARRETO, Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., Defendants. No. 10-CV-0028 (JS)(AKT). United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 22, 2010. *485 Juarez F. Barreto, Ogdensburg, NY, pro se. Brian C. Mitchell, Esq., Suffolk County Dept. of Law, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants.<

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered April 19, 1985, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree and assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppre

816 F.Supp. 12 (1993) Donald GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 91-0644 (JHG). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 16, 1993. *13 Vicki G. Golden, Maloney & Burch, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. William J. Earl, Asst. Corp. Counse

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 27, 1964, which denied his application and dismissed his petition to restrain the respondents from holding a special meeting of the voters of the school district on March 10, 1964 to vote upon a resolution for the expansion of the Wheatley School, and to vacate the respondents’ resolution authorizi

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: The complaint in this action against the County of Monroe alleges that the infant plaintiff was injured due to the negligence of a day-care mother certified by the County of Monroe. The court properly held that the complaint stated causes of action for the county’s negligence in selecting and certifying the day-care mother and

Judgment unanimously modified on the the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The last paragraph of the judgment appealed from is modified by changing the language, ”48 hours”, to ”10 days”, and by adding to the end, “unless exigent circumstances which justify a further limited delay are present in a particular case.” (see, Crespo v Hall, 56 NY2d 856, 859; County of Nassau

Patterson v State of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 00136) Patterson v State of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 00136 Decided on January 9, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

OPINION OF THE COURT Paul G. Feinman, J. Plaintiffs, a group comprised of organizations and individuals sincerely and legitimately concerned with the state of the New York City school system, move for a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the closure or phasing out of certain designated schools within the New York City school system; and (2) enjoining certain charter schools from being co-located in existin

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff in this case, Theresa Kohutka (“Kohutka” or the “Plaintiff’), commenced this action on April 15, 2011 against the Defendants the Town of Hempstead (the “Town”), Charles Milone, John Allback, Christine Reeke, Debra Bove, and Brian Braccio, asserting causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHR

*1324ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 19; Motion), filed on June 1, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion on June 21, 2016, (Doc. 22; Response), and annexed two affidavits, including the Affidavit of Tina Leme

680 F.Supp.2d 716 (2010) Robert ACEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-1044. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 21, 2010. *720 Jeffrey Campolongo, Law Office of Jeffrey Campolongo, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff. Anne Barden, Jeffrey B. First, City of Philadel

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring a certain tax deed void, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated May 25, 2005, which, upon an order of the same court dated May 4, 2005, inter alia, granting the cross motion of the defendant Florence Risman for summary judgment on her counterclaim to quiet title and, in effect, upon renewal, adhering to a prior determination of the same court denying t

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION1 In a complaint dated January 10, 2012, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unilaterally *44increased the percentage of contributions that Plaintiffs, active and retired employees, are required to pay for health insurance benefits i

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant *1074City of Rochester’s cross motion for summary judgment. The City submitted the affidavits of the City Treasurer and the Deputy City Treasurer asserting that a letter and notice of the 1989 foreclosure action on the property were sent to plaintiff on November 14, 1

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered April 19, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree, and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress his statements made to a police officer and

928 F.Supp. 37 (1996) Randall J. SOILEAU, Plaintiff, v. GUILFORD OF MAINE, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 95-162-B. United States District Court, D. Maine. June 10, 1996. *38 *39 *40 *41 *42

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered April 25, 2003. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint in a personal injury action. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the amended complaint is reinstated.