Cases

Doe v City of New York (2020 NY Slip Op 03768) Doe v City of New York 2020 NY Slip Op 03768 Decided on July 8, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judi

OPINION OF THE COURT Margaret A. Chan, J. Plaintiff is a transgender female who is a client of the New York City Human Resources Administration’s (HRA) HIV/AIDS Services Administration (HASA). She was diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and has completed convertive surgery. On August 31, 2011, plaintiff requested that HASA update its records to reflect her legal name change and change of gender informat

SUMMARY ORDER Jane Doe appeals from a March 4, 2018 Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge) dismissing Doe’s claims alleging municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training under New York law.1 For substantially the same reasons stated in the district cour

*855In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered April 8, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Long Island Railroad which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted agai

OPINION OF THE COURT Phyllis Orlikoff Plug, J. Ordered that the motions and cross motion are consolidated for the purpose of disposition and are determined as follows: On December 19, 2002, between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., plaintiff was the victim of a violent sexual assault and robbery. The incident began when a group of men attacked plaintiff and her boyfriend as they were walking al

(2008) John DOE, Anti-Terrorism Officer, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Bruce Tefft, Defendants. No. 06-CV-13738(BSJ). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 6, 2008. Order BARBARA S. JONES, District Judge. In a complaint dated December 5, 2006 (the "Complaint"), Plaintiff John Doe Anti-Terrorism Officer ("Plaintiff"),

MEMORANDUM OPINION KAPLAN, District Judge. The question raised by this motion is whether the plaintiff in this Section 1983 civil rights action should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym on the ground that broad publication of her name in any published decisions or otherwise would cause her undue embarrassment and reputational injury. *

15 F.3d 264 63 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1117,63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,819, 62 USLW 2496,9 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 360,22 Media L. Rep. 1246 In the Matter of the Claim of John DOE (this name beingfictitious), Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK; The City of New York Commission onHuman Rights; Dennis DeLeon, as Commissioner/Chair of theCity of New York Commission on Human Rights

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant John Doe, so identified in order to protect his privacy and anonymity, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.) dismissing his civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 825 F.Supp. 36. Doe brought the action against the defendant-appellees City of New York, the City of New York Commission on H

825 F.Supp. 36 (1993) In the Matter of the Claim of John DOE (this name being fictitious), Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, the City of New York Commission on Human Rights, Dennis Deleon, as Commissioner/Chair of the City of New York Commission on Human Rights and Individually, and Karen Arthur as an employee of the City of New York Commission on Human Rights and Individually, Defendants. No. 92 Civ. 8044 (TPG).

Doe v New York City Police Dept. (2021 NY Slip Op 00009) Doe v New York City Police Dept. 2021 NY Slip Op 00009 Decided on January 05, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting

Doe v New York City Police Dept. (2021 NY Slip Op 00009) Doe v New York City Police Dept. 2021 NY Slip Op 00009 Decided on January 05, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting

McQueen v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 25007) [*1] McQueen v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 25007 Decided on January 10, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Frias-Colón, J. Published by New York State

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 27, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, partially denied plaintiff’s motion to compel certain discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In this action, plaintiff, a former New York City Police Officer seeks to recover damages arising from alleged harassment

McQueen v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 25007) [*1] McQueen v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 25007 Decided on January 10, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Frias-Colon, J. Published by New York State

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 21, 2014, which granted defendant New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs. It is undisputed that defendant Agosto, a substitute teacher at another school and the infant plaintiffs track coach,

J. Hall, District Judge: *86 Plaintiffs Eric Hu ("Hu"), 888 Consulting Corporation ("888 Consulting"), and NY Drilling ("NY Drilling") are an Asian construction worker and Asian-owned companies. 1 They brought this lawsuit against the

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

JOHN M, WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant’ Ryan Dufort appeals from a memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Steven M. Gold, M.J.)2 granting summary judgment to the defendants, the City of New York and New York City police officers Joseph Mar-otta, Jae Shim, Thomas Confortó, and William Schmi

DECISION & ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge: Geoffrey and Ophelia Rice (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19831 and New York law against the City of New York; the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”); NYPD Officers David Goldstein, Darrell Shannon, Glenda Holloman, and Christos Drakakis; Vanessa Peterson; Willoughby Court Apar