Cases

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: The named Plaintiffs and members of the , proposed classes (“Plaintiffs”) are a group of minority individuals employed by Defendant New York City (the “City”) to answer and direct public calls to the City’s 911 emergency response system. (Dkt, 77 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ Í2.) Plaintiffs bring this action against the City; Michael Bloom-berg as Mayor

558 F.3d 159 (2009) LATINO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., for itself and its members, Wilfred Maldonado, Anthony Miranda, also known as Ed, Manuel Nunez, Clifford Muniz, Adam Alvarez, Charles Castro, Louis Vega, Thaddeus Gamory, Michael Padilla, Carlos Jimenez, Jose Mercedes, Ruben *160 Malave, Hilda Susu, Daniel Figueroa, and all others similarly situated, Hector Ariza, Manuel Gomez, Christopher Castro,

615 F.Supp.2d 196 (2009) Marshall VANDERMARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Department of Environmental Protection, Water Board for New York City, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, Emily Lloyd, Commissioner, Edward Welch, Chief, James Golden, President of Local 300, SEIU, and Local 300, SEIU, Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 5332(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: This case concerns an amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York (the “Zoning Amendment”) regulating the zoning of “adult establishment[s],” as defined by the Zoning Amendment. The principal provisions of the Zoning Amendment limit the permissible locations of adult establishments to non-residential districts1 and require that they be located — wit

23-683 Elias Bochner, et al. v. City of New York, et al. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2023 No. 23-683 ELIAS BOCHNER, 287 7TH AVENUE REALTY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Judge Chin dissents in a separate opinion. Keenan, District Judge: *341Plaintiff Richard Natofsky appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting summary judgment to Defendants (Buchwald, J. ). Natofsky served as the Director of Budget and Human Resour

17-2757 Natofsky v. City of New York 17‐2757‐cv Natofsky v. City of New York In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM, 2018 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 DECIDED: APRIL 18, 2019 No. 17‐2757

14-1395-cv Littlejohn v. City of New York 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 5 6 August Term, 2014 7 No. 14‐1395‐cv 8 9

Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v City of New York (2024 NY Slip Op 03321) Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 03321 [42 NY3d 992] June 18, 2024 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Special Hagan, an African-American former Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Officer for the City of New York, brings this action pro se against the City and several of its officials pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Matsumoto, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Jakwan Rivers and Debía Crenshaw (“plaintiffs”) initiated this action against the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), NYCHA employees John Rhea (“Rhea”), Gloria Finkelman (“Finkelman”), Carolyn Jasper (“Jasper”), Carl Walton (“Walton”), and Melethil Alexander (“Alexander”), (collectively, the “NYCHA defendants”), as we

MEMORANDUM & OPINION PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Merlene Bacchus, a former school aide in the New York City public school system, brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), District Council 37 and its affiliate, the Board of Education Employees Local 372 (collectively “Union Defendants” or “Union”), and Renee Pepper (“Pepper”), assistant prin

813 F.Supp.2d 417 (2011) David FLOYD, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 1034(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 31, 2011. *421 Darius Charney, Esq., Sunita Patel, Es

OPINION OF THE COURT Gonzalez, J. This appeal requires us to determine whether Supreme Court properly directed the City of New York to submit a plan to *87demolish an elevated railway on Manhattan’s West Side to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) set forth in the New York City Charter. We conclude that neither of the two grounds cited by

608 F.Supp.2d 465 (2009) William KREGLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 6893 (VM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 16, 2009. *466 Nathaniel B. Smith, Law Office of Nathaniel B. Smith, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Christopher Aaron Seacord, New York City Law Department, Ne

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND This appeal stirs up a volatile mix of anti-tobacco legislation, federal preemption and First Amendment limitations upon commercial speech. In early 1998, New York City enacted Local Law No. 3. It is entitled the ‘Youth Protection Against Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act,” and is codified as Article 17-A to Title 27, Chapter 1, sub-chapter 7,

OPINION OF THE COURT Gische, J. The central issue raised by this appeal is whether plaintiffs have a right, via a writ of mandamus, to compel the municipal defendants to enforce certain laws related to preserving public health and preventing animal cruelty, which they allege are violated by Orthodox Jews who perform the religious practice of Kaporos. We affirm Supreme Court’s dismissal of the

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-CV-0568 PETER GORDON et al., APPELLANTS, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMB

07-5293-cv Latino Officers v. The City of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2008 (Argued: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009) Docket No. 07-5293-cv LATINO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION CITY OF NEW YORK , INC ., for itself and its membe

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ekaterina Schoenefeld (“Plaintiff’) filed this action for equitable relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Southern District of New York on April 1, 2008. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶ 2. Plaintiff alleges that New York Judiciary Law Section 470 (McKinney 2010) (“Section 470”)