Bacon v. Health Insurance Plan Of Greater New York et al

Defendant: Queens-Long Island Medical Group, P.C. and Health Insurance Plan Of Greater New York
Plaintiff: Asa Bacon
Case Number: 2:2010cv05644
Filed: December 6, 2010
Court: New York Eastern District Court
Office: Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge: Arthur D. Spatt
Referring Judge: William D. Wall
Nature of Suit: Contract: Recovery/Enforcement
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bacon v. Health Insurance Plan Of Greater New York et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Queens-Long Island Medical Group, P.C.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Health Insurance Plan Of Greater New York
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Asa Bacon
Represented By: James E. Bahamonde
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.