Cases

Rosenfeld v City of New York (2021 NY Slip Op 04770) Rosenfeld v City of New York 2021 NY Slip Op 04770 Decided on August 25, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau p

45 B.R. 892 (1985) In re Isaac SILVERMAN, Bankrupt. Arthur S. ROSENFELD, Trustee of the Estate of Isaac Silverman, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 77 B 2988. United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 30, 1985. *893 Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City, for City of

Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v Rosenfeld (2024 NY Slip Op 24233) [*1] Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v Rosenfeld 2024 NY Slip Op 24233 Decided on August 12, 2024 Appellate Term, Second Department

OPINION & ORDER ROBERT P. PATTERSON, JR., District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff Dwaine Taylor1 (“Plaintiff’) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”), Supervising Warden Arthur Olivari, Chiefs of Department Larry W. Davis, Sr. and Michael Hourihane, Warden Will

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge Plaintiff Stephanie Rosenfeld brings this action under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. and 2701 et seq.,

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This suit — against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and its Chancellor, Carmen Fariña (collectively, the “City Defendants”) and the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) and its Commissioner, MaryEllen Elia1 (collectively, the “State Defendants”) (together w

594 F.3d 94 (2010) CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Scenic Outdoor, Inc., Troystar City Outdoor LLC, and Willow Media, LLC, Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and Patricia J. Lancaster, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, Defendants-Appellees, Edward Fortier, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee. Metro Fuel LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

608 F.Supp.2d 477 (2009) CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Patricia J. Lancaster, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, Defendants. Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Scenic Outdoor, Inc., Troystar City Outdoor LLC, and Willow Media, LLC., Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, Patricia J. Lancaster, and Edward Fortier, Defendants. Metro Fuel LLC, Pl

OPINION OF THE COURT Joseph Capella, J. By notice of motion dated June 26, 2007, the petitioner seeks, inter alia, summary disposition (CPLR 409) of the proceeding and dismissal (CPLR 3211 [b]) of the respondent’s *469ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth affirmative defenses. First, as to the summary disposition req

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Order, dated May 19, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs. Appeal from order, dated November 9, 2006, dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order. We agree, essentially for reasons stated by the motion court, that the holdover proceeding is not ripe for summary dismissal on the preanswer record so far developed, which raises triable issues as to w

OPINION OF THE COURT Herbert Kramer, J. *194A great deal can be accomplished over the Internet: A few well placed keystrokes can send us to exotic places, requisition goods and services, find employment and educate us. Is it possible to make a contract for the sale of real property via e-mail? Defendant moves for summary judgment

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Joseph V. Scelsa, individually and as Director of the John D. Calandra Italian American Institute (the Institute) of the City University of New York (CUNY), appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Constance Baker Motley, J.). The order denied, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Seelsa’s motion for a preliminary injunction enforcin

OPINION OF THE COURT On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying tenant’s petition for administrative review was not arbitrary or capricious, as tenant failed

Benjamin v City of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 09098) Benjamin v City of New York 2019 NY Slip Op 09098 Decided on December 19, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu

Guzman v City of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 03273) Guzman v City of New York 2019 NY Slip Op 03273 Decided on April 30, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant

Henn v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 05830) Henn v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 05830 Decided on August 22, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

SUMMARY ORDER At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of October, two thousand and five. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED and the cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED.

SUMMARY ORDER At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of October, two thousand and five. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED and the cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED.

Costidis v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 01901) Costidis v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 01901 Decided on March 21, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau purs

OPINION OF THE COURT Louis B. York, J. This is the 25th motion in an action begun nearly 12 years ago to require defendants to comply with statutory requirements for the removal of lead-based paint hazards for residential buildings in New York City. "Patience may be a virtue, but from Genesis to the fulfillment of the Apocalypse, or the coming of the Messiah, is too long a period of time to have to wait for