DMAC LLC et al v. City of Peekskill et al
| DMAC LLC and Fourmen Construction, Inc. |
| City of Peekskill Planning Commission, City of Peekskill Department of Planning, Development and Code Assistance, City of Peekskill Department of Public Works, City of Peekskill Department of Public Works Building Department, City of Peekskill City Planner, Director of the City of Peekskill Department of Planning, Development and Code Assistance, David Greener, Victor Pizzella, Jeffrey P. Roma, The Westside Neighborhood Association, City of Peekskill, City of Peekskill Mayor and Common Council and City of Peekskill Zoning Board of Appeals |
| 7:2009cv05093 |
| June 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| George A. Yanthis |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
127
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: The Court has thoroughly and carefully reviewed the briefs and voluminous record submitted in conjunction with the instant motions. Upon due consideration, I conclude that numerous triable issues of fact preclude summar y judgment in any party's favor. Accordingly, the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions (Dkt. #74, #78 and #95). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 10/29/2013) (lnl)
|
|
Filing
85
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs seek an adverse inference instruction and also request that the Court strike certain of defendants' affirmative defenses. I decline to strike any of defendants' affirmative defenses, as I fi nd that other alternative sanctions are adequate to satisfy the "prophylatic, punitive and remedial rationales underlying the [spoliation] doctrine." Id. To that end, in the first instance, I find that an adverse inference instruction is ap propriat e here. Specifically, plaintiffs are entitled to an adverse inference instruction to the effect that the City negligently destroyed e-mails similar in nature to the ones produced, and that said e-mails would have been favorable to plaintiffs ' ca se. If the case proceeds to trial, the parties shall propose specific language for the adverse inference instruction in their pretrial submissions, I also find it appropriate to award plaintiffs costs and fees arising from the instant motio n. With r espect to said costs andfees, plaintiffs' counsel shall submit their application to the Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, and defendants may respond within fourteen (14) days of plaintiffs' submission. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 9/17/2012) (fk)
|
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
