TADCO Construction Corp. et al v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York et al
Plaintiff: TADCO Construction Corp. and Thomas Demartino
Defendant: Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Tyrone Middleton, Pat Cinelli, James Gray, Jack Kemp and John Does #1-#5
Case Number: 1:2008cv00073
Filed: January 7, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Joan M. Azrack
Presiding Judge: David G. Trager
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 140 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Upon a careful review of the record and Judge Azrack's well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation 135 , the court finds no clear error and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommenda tion in all respects as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment as to DeMartino's § 1983 claims is granted in its entirety, and TADCO's remaining state law claims are dismisse d without prejudice to refiling in state court. Defendants' request for attorney's fees is denied based on the record before the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of individual defendants and close this case. Defendants may apply to the Clerk of Court for costs within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Defendants' 139 motion for extension of time to file a response to plaintiffs' objections is terminated as moot. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/18/2014. (Tsai, Denise)
July 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER denying 94 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court denies DeMartino's motion for this court's entry of partial final judgment of Judge Trager's March 19, 2010 order and issuance of a certificate of appealability as to that judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/23/2012. (Chang, Emily)
February 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 76 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Defendants are ordered to (1) serve plaintiff DeMartino with a copy of this order and (2) file a declaration of service by February 15, 2012. In addition, by March 2, 2012, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding how they intend to proceed. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 2/14/2012. (Chang, Emily)
March 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 39 Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Ordered by Senior Judge David G. Trager on 3/19/2010. (Welton, Shelley).
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: TADCO Construction Corp. et al v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: TADCO Construction Corp.
Represented By: Bryan Ha
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Thomas Demartino
Represented By: Bryan Ha
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dormitory Authority of the State of 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tyrone Middleton
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Pat Cinelli
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: James Gray
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jack Kemp
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Does #1-#5
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?