Cases

OPINION Sweet, District Judge. The plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft (“Schoolcraft” or the “Plaintiff”) has moved pursuant to Local Civil Rule'6.3 and Rulés 59(e), 54(b), and 60(b), Fed R. Civ. P, for reconsideration of certain portions of the September 6, 2016 order awarding the Plaintiff $1,093,658.04 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements in this civil rights action against The City of New York, cert

PER CURIAM: This case returns to us following certification to the New York Court of Appeals. Defendants-Appellants the City of New York, the New York City Council, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs Julie Menin appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eric N. Vitali-ano, J.), e

OPINION OP THE COURT Chief Judge Lippman. Plaintiffs, law firms involved in debt collection, commenced this action in federal district court to challenge certain amendments to the New York City Administrative Code (Local Law No. 15 [2009] of City of NY) pertaining to debt collection activities. The Second Circuit certified for our review the issue of whether the local law is preempted by the State’s statutor

CHIN, Circuit Judge: In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, thousands of individuals—firefighters, police officers, construction and cleaning workers, and others—participated in rescue, recovery, and clean-up operations at the World Trade Center site and surrounding areas. Many sustained injuries, and eventually more than 10,000 lawsuits were filed against the City of New York, priva

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of defendants (referred to collectively as the “City”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and specification of issues for review. We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to bring their Endan

OPINION OF THE COURT Michael D. Stallman, J. It is hereby ordered that petitioners’ application for an extension of the temporary restraining order granted by Justice Lucy Billings on November 15, 2011 at 6:30 a.m. is denied; and it is further ordered that respondents are directed to answer the petition within 30 days; and it is further ordered that petitioners may submit a reply to the petition within 15 da

759 F.Supp.2d 450 (2010) Tarasik ABDELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. No. 05 Civ. 8453(RJS)(JCF). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 22, 2010. *452 Alan H. Levine, Law Offices of Alan Levine, New York, NY, Martin R. Stolar, Law Office of Martin R. Stolar, New York, NY, Michae

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. Under the Judiciary Law, “the appellate division of the supreme court in each department is authorized to censure, suspend from practice or remove from office any attorney . . . who is guilty of professional misconduct ... or any conduct p

Smith, J. (dissenting). The question presented by this case is whether CPLR 901 permits use of the class action device to litigate a claim of “systemic failure” by a government agency. I answer the question no. The majority seems hesitant to describe this as a systemic failure case. It says that it “need not address whether a ‘super-claim’ of systemic failure predicated on diverse and unrelated injuries, withou

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

Freedman, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the motion court because the Salvation Army has paid JFK the full amount that it is entitled to receive under the parties’ lease agreement. This lawsuit arises from the Salvation Army’s operation, on behalf of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) and the City of New York, of a shelter for homeless families at the

Freedman, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the motion court because the Salvation Army has paid JFK the full amount that it is entitled to receive under the parties’ lease agreement. This lawsuit arises from the Salvation Army’s operation, on behalf of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) and the City of New York, of a shelter for homeless families at the

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, Defendants contend that the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment on the pleadings for immunity under New York state law, and their motions for summary judgment for immunity under federal law. We do not have jurisdiction over the state law immunity claims, as the immunity is from liability, not suit. We do have jurisdiction over the federal claims, and hold that the

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Pending before us is a motion to vacate this Court’s stay of District Court proceedings in litigation brought by workers at the ground zero site of the World Trade Center disaster and related sites against the City of New York, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and several private contractors. The stay was entered pending an interlocutory appeal from an order of the District Court for

Abdus-Salaam, J. (concurring). The majority appropriately employs a flexible case-specific analysis of the New York City Board of Health’s authority and correctly concludes that when the Board issued the peculiar “Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule,” it exercised a power which no legislative body has delegated to it (see generally majority op at 690, 696-701). Because I agree with the core rationale and result of the majo

Matter of H.R. v New York State Dept. of Health (2024 NY Slip Op 02567) Matter of H.R. v New York State Dept. of Health 2024 NY Slip Op 02567 Decided on May 9, 2024 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Report

649 F.3d 151 (2011) CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED, HIP Foundation, Inc., and Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 10-2286-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: May 4, 2011. Decided: August 18, 2011. *152 Alan H. Kle

POOLER, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants City of New York, New York City Council, New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, and Jonathan Mintz (collectively, “Defendants” ,or “New York City”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eric N. Vitaliano, J.), entered on February 14, 2013, which granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs-A

*382OPINION OF THE COURT Smith, J. In this declaratory judgment action arising from an ongoing collective bargaining dispute between the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York (PBA) and the City of New York (City), the primary issue presented is whether chapter 641 of the Laws of 1998, which amended the Public Employees’ Fair Emplo