Blair v. City of New York et al
| Teddy Blair |
| City of New York, Edward Hendrickson, John and Jane Doe #1-10 and Charles Schmidt |
| 1:2003cv01485 |
| March 31, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Cheryl L. Pollak |
| Sandra L. Townes |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
76
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint 63 is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted with respect to Plaintiff's first and second causes of action, alleging false arr est and malicious prosecution, respectively. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is also granted with respect to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action, alleging malicious abuse of process, and his fifth cause of action, alleging denial of a fair trial. In addition, Defendant City of New York's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the City of New York is dismissed from this action. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to Plaintiff's third cause of action, alleging excessive force. Defendants have not established that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/31/2009. (Frullo, Veronica)
|
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 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.
