DaCosta v. City of New York et al
| Maxie DaCosta |
| City of New York and P.O.'s John and Jane Doe # 1 through # 20 |
| Det. David Shapiro |
| 1:2015cv05174 |
| September 5, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Roanne L. Mann |
| Jack B. Weinstein |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
112
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the court's November 8, 2017 Order, ECF No. 84 . The December 12, 2017 Order, ECF No. 93 , is confirmed. Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein on 1/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Barrett, C) (Main Document 112 replaced on 1/30/2018) (Barrett, C).
|
|
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 54 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the malicious prosecution claim asserted against Detective Tranchina. Other claims are dismissed in accordance with the court's orders of November 8, 2017, see ECF No. 84 , and November 15, 2017, see ECF No. 86 . The November 15, 2017 order regarding dates for trial and pretrial maters remains in effect. See ECF. No. 86 . Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein on 12/12/2017. (Barrett, C)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT, reversing 59 report of the magistrate judge recommending denial of permission to amend. Plaintiff may amend his complaint to substitute Detective Tranchina for D etective Shapiro. Plaintiff's claim against Detective Tranchina is timely under the governing statute of limitations. The Corporation Counsel may not assert the statute of limitations as a defense; it did not adequately discharge its ethical and procedural duties to Plaintiff to disabuse him of his mistake. The claim against Detective Tranchina relates back to the filing of the original complaint. Dismissing this claim on the basis of the statute of limitations would be inconsistent with Valentin v. Dinkins 121 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 1997), Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 541 (2010), and Buran v. Coupal, 661 N.E.2d 978, 981 (N.Y. 1995). The court reserves judgement on Defendants motion for Summary Judgement on other grounds. Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein on 11/8/2017. (Barrett, C)
|
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.
