Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Richardson v. The City Of New York,et al”
14 N.Y.3d 920 (2010) In the Matter of HANK RICHARDSON, JR., Appellant, et al., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, PATTERSON HOUSES, Respondent. Motion No: 2010-467. Court of Appeals of New York. Submitted April 19, 2010. Decided June 10, 2010. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from
Richardson v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Richardson v City of New York (2020 NY Slip Op 03281) Richardson v City of New York 2020 NY Slip Op 03281 Decided on June 11, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu
Richardson v. New York City Hous. Auth.public domain
Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth. (2024 NY Slip Op 00036) Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth. 2024 NY Slip Op 00036 Decided on January 04, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu
Richardson v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Richardson v City of New York (2026 NY Slip Op 00215) Richardson v City of New York 2026 NY Slip Op 00215 Decided on January 15, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Th
Castellanos v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Castellanos v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 02151) Castellanos v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 02151 Decided on April 15, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciar
Matter of Kayam v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Matter of Kayam v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 02037) Matter of Kayam v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 02037 Decided on April 08, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
Matter of Romero v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Matter of Romero v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 01054) Matter of Romero v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 01054 Decided on February 20, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuan
Bank of New York v. Richardsonpublic domain
15 A.3d 756 (2011) 2011 ME 38 BANK OF NEW YORK as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWL, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-08 v. Ralph J. RICHARDSON et al. Docket No. Yor-10-498. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: February 8, 2011. Decided: March 22, 2011. *758 Paul J. Gr
Dora Howell v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
State of New York MEMORANDUM Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 91 Dora Howell, Appellant, v. City of New York, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Beverley Gale Vanier, for appellant. Devin Slack, for respondents. M
Richardson v. District of Columbiapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROMULO RICHARDSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-3161 (UNA) ) DIST
Richardson v. Kypublic domain
Richardson v Ky (2025 NY Slip Op 01882) Richardson v Ky 2025 NY Slip Op 01882 Decided on March 27, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. <
Richardson v. Garelypublic domain
Richardson v Garely (2024 NY Slip Op 00250) Richardson v Garely 2024 NY Slip Op 00250 Decided on January 18, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. </
Richardson v. Garelypublic domain
Richardson v Garely (2024 NY Slip Op 00250) Richardson v Garely 2024 NY Slip Op 00250 Decided on January 18, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. </
Weicht v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered December 21, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. “A plaintiff’s inability to testify exactly
Pizarro v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), entered April 7, 2015, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, awarding, as against defendant Police Officer Morales, punitive damages to plaintiff Pizarro in the amount of $1,000,000 and to plaintiff Garcia in the amount of $250,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate in
Matter of Grajko v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Matter of Grajko v City of New York (2017 NY Slip Op 04203) Matter of Grajko v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 04203 Decided on May 25, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reportin
Richardson v. District of Columbia Superior Courtspublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROMULO RICHARDSON, et al., ) on behalf of A.G.H. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02585 (UNA) ) DIST
Latanya L. Richardson and Reginald E. Parker v. New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2019RPL3public domain
EFiled: Aug 29 2025 02:57PM EDT Transaction ID 76968835 Case No. 2024-0775-CDW IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LATANYA L. RICHARDSON and ) REGINALD E. PARKER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No.
Latanya L. Richardson and Reginald E. Parker v. New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2019RPL3public domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LATANYA L. RICHARDSON and ) REGINALD E. PARKER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. 2024-0775-CDW NEW RESIDENTIAL ) MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST ) 2019RPL3, MR. COOPER, and ) LOGS LEGAL GROUP, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) REPORT GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Gregware v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Sweeny, J. (dissenting). I dissent. The record clearly reflects a pattern of highly inflammatory, prejudicial and improper comments made by plaintiffs’ counsel during his summation. Taken as a whole, those comments deprived defendants, particularly the City of New York, of a fair trial. I would therefore remand this case for a new trial on all issues. There are certain well-settled principles established that ap