Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Amended judgment, entered February 7, 2005, to the extent appealed from, reversed, without costs, defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict on the false arrest claim granted and plaintiffs false arrest cause of action dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter a further amended judgment accordingly. Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding th

Matter of Cedrone v City of Fulton Assessor's Off. (2024 NY Slip Op 01486) Matter of Cedrone v City of Fulton Assessor's Off. 2024 NY Slip Op 01486 Decided on March 15, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State

Matter of Cedrone v City of Fulton Assessor's Off. (2023 NY Slip Op 06620) Matter of Cedrone v City of Fulton Assessor's Off. 2023 NY Slip Op 06620 Decided on December 22, 2023 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York Sta

AMBRO, Circuit Judge A reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer informed the City of Philadelphia's Department of Human Services in March 2018 that two of its agencies would not work with same-sex couples as foster parents. Human Services investigated this allegation, which it considered a violation of the City's anti-discrimination laws. When the agencies confirmed that, because of their relig

Respondent initially served petitioner with a notice charging *361her with chronic rent delinquency, which was later amended to include nondesirability based upon information in a September 10, 2004 Daily News article that petitioner had been charged with unauthorized use of an ATM card. The decision to terminate petitioner’s tenancy was based on her guilty plea to this felony offense (grand larcen

Proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law article 17 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to General Municipal *1530Law § 712) for a determination that a proposed annexation is in the public interest. It is hereby ordered that the petition is unanimously granted without costs and judgment is granted in favor of

Proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law article 17 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to General Municipal *1530Law § 712) for a determination that a proposed annexation is in the public interest. It is hereby ordered that the petition is unanimously granted without costs and judgment is granted in favor of

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 303 OP 12-02204 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND WHALEN, JJ. IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF FULTON, PETITIONER, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TOWN OF GRANBY, RESPONDENT. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN D. ALLEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. SCOTT F. CHATFIELD, MARIETTA, FOR RESPONDENT. Proceeding pursuant to Ge

OPINION AND ORDER Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.DJ. I. INTRODUCTION Brian Wynn, John Williams, Awilda Guzman, Jose Otero, and Kevin Fulton (the “Named Plaintiffs”) bring this action alleging that their employer, the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), has been systematically under-compensating them due to their race and/or ethnicity. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violations of

In 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, Bangs County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated January 8, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to enter judgment against the defendant Fulton Street Realty Venture, LLC, on the issue of liability upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint, and granted the application by that defendant

Whalen, J. (dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent in part because I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rather, I would affirm the order. I agree with the majority that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that defendant City of Fulton (City) did not receive prior written notice

Whalen, J. (dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent in part because I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rather, I would affirm the order. I agree with the majority that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that defendant City of Fulton (City) did not receive prior written notice

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1086 CA 13-00579 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. MICHELLE PULVER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CITY OF FULTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY OF FULTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, SYRACUSE (LISA M. ROBINSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLA

386 F.Supp.2d 277 (2005) Eliezer WAHHAB, and Amehra Brown, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Police Officers Samuel Rushing, Shield # 6377 and David E. Martin, Shield # 88157, the Gallery at Fulton St., LLC, Top Potato Plus Corp., Theodore Priftakis, Individually and as Owner/Manager of Top Potato Plus Corp., Cannady Security Co., Henry Cannady, Individually and as Owner of Cannady Security Co., Security Guard Jovan Rouse, and Se

Matter of Spencer v City of Fulton 2026 NY Slip Op 04633 July 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. IN THE MATTER OF RANDY SPENCER, PETITIONER, v CITY OF FULTON, RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New

JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: The Taxicab & Limousine Commission of New York City (“TLC”) and several New York City officials (collectively, “the City”) appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Crotty, Judge), that enjoined the enforcement of the City’s revisions to the maximum lease r

—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioners City of Fulton, Fulton Fire Department and Fulton Department of Civil Service commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 seeking to review so much of the final order of the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) as awarded respondent Carl M. Emmons, Sr. (Emmons) compensatory damages for mental

Determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board dated June 30, 1993, finding that petitioner improperly handled and stored waste containing asbestos and imposing fines against it in the amount of $54,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 23, 1994 is dismissed, with

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 625 Fulton Associates and First New York Management Co. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 10, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed i

6 N.Y.3d 487 (2006) 846 N.E.2d 1211 813 N.Y.S.2d 701 JUAN ALEJANDRO SOTO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant, et al., Defendant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued February 9, 2006. Decided March 23, 2006. *488 Lawrence Heisler, Brooklyn,