Cases

OPINION AND ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: Plaintiff Ruben An was arrested while filming on his cell phone New York Police Department (“NYPD”) officers. He sues Defendant City of New York (“the City”), alleging the arrest violated his First Amendment rights and seeking an injunction barring NYPD officers from arresting Plaintiff or others solely for recording police officers who are performing

Matter of Slade v Haymes (2025 NY Slip Op 03577) Matter of Slade v Haymes 2025 NY Slip Op 03577 Decided on June 11, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This op

979 F.Supp. 1010 (1997) ALL AIRE CONDITIONING, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. HENICK-LANE, INC., Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. Nos. 93 CIV. 4718(LAK), 96 CIV. 9483(LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 30, 1997. *1011

922 F.Supp. 857 (1996) Joyce STRATTON, Plaintiff, v. The DEPARTMENT FOR THE AGING FOR the CITY OF NEW YORK, The City of New York and Prema Mathai-Davis, Defendants. No. 91 Civ. 6623 (SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 12, 1996. *858 *859 *860

136 F.3d 123 26 Media L. Rep. 1301 NEW YORK MAGAZINE, A DIVISION OF PRIMEDIA MAGAZINES, INC.,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.The METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and The City ofNew York, Defendants-Appellants. No. 1645, Dockets 97-9511, 97-9519. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit Argued Dec. 15, 1997.Decided Jan. 22,

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman C. Ryp, J.), which denied the petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review the rejection of petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for police reports, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition granted to the extent of directing respondent to review the requested records and either release them to the petitioner or specify, with particularity, the reason for refusing so to do, with

*977OPINION OF THE COURT Edward H. Lehner, J. This motion in limine involves two issues: (1) the application of the Dead Man’s Statute to testimony that plaintiffs seek to introduce concerning their interactions with the deceased Aleck Slade, and (2) which party in an alleged attorney-client relationship bears the burden of proving when th

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, againstKenneth Slade, Defendant-Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on August 28, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the CPLR article 78 petition brought pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL; Public Officers Law art 6), ordering respondent to turn over certain specified complaint follow-up reports, with appropriate redaction, and to turn over other documents in consultation with petitioner, unanimously modified, on the

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

1/21/2022 2:44:38 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 20-637.pdf 20-637_new.pdf versus 32 pages (181 KB) 32 pages (184 KB)

898 F.Supp. 1065 (1995) C.A.U.T.I.O.N., LTD., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. Defendants. No. 93 Civ. 4718 (LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 15, 1995. *1066 Marjorie E. Berman, Leventhal Slade & Krantz, New York City, for Plaintiffs. Gabriel Taussig, Lisa S.J. Yee,

OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages brought by two employees of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”). Plaintiffs allege that HPD has discriminated and continues to discriminate against a group of its black employees in HPD’s Division of Code Enforcement (“DCE”) on the basis of

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Rivera v Slade Indus., Inc. (2021 NY Slip Op 06458) Rivera v Slade Indus., Inc. 2021 NY Slip Op 06458 Decided on November 18, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu

Rivera v Slade Indus., Inc. (2021 NY Slip Op 06458) Rivera v Slade Indus., Inc. 2021 NY Slip Op 06458 Decided on November 18, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu

*284OPINION OF THE COURT Helen E. Freedman, J. Plaintiffs are homeless families with special medical needs who have been referred to emergency housing consisting of barracks-style mass shelters. Included are families with pregnant women, families with children under six months of age, and families whose members have physical, psychological or medical

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD LEE JONES, JR., No. 20-15642 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:18-cv-02034- MTL-JZB S. SLADE, South Unit Property Officer COII #1777 at Arizona Department of Corrections; D. OPINION MILLER, Employee of Office of Publication Rev

OPINION OF THE COURT Helen E. Freedman, J. On March 16, 1987, this court issued a decision preliminarily and permanently enjoining all of the above-captioned "city” defendants from placing homeless families with pregnant women or children under six months of age in mass or barracks-style shelters without private accommodations, "Tier I” facilities, in accordance with the State family shelter regulations (18 N

Matter of Uni-Rty Corp. v New York Guangdong Fin., Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 01307) Matter of Uni-Rty Corp. v New York Guangdong Fin., Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 01307 Decided on March 06, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New Yo