Tully et al v. United States of America

Defendant: United States of America
Plaintiff: Thomas Olesczuk and Peter K. Tully
Case Number: 2:2012cv02512
Filed: May 18, 2012
Court: New York Eastern District Court
Office: Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bianco
Referring Judge: E. Thomas Boyle
Nature of Suit: Taxes
Cause of Action: 26:7422 IRS: Refund Taxes
Jury Demanded By: None

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: Tully et al v. United States of America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States of America
Represented By: Stephen Tancill Lyons
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: Thomas Olesczuk
Represented By: Jean-Pierre Van Lent
Represented By: Matthew Glen Roseman
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: Peter K. Tully
Represented By: Matthew Glen Roseman
Represented By: Jean-Pierre Van Lent
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.