Farghaly et al v. The City of New York et al
| Akram Farghaly and Rania Mohamed |
| Marion Mitchell, Alvin Soto and The City of New York |
| 1:2016cv06660 |
| December 1, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Nina Gershon |
| Steven M. Gold |
| P.I.: 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
53
OPINION AND ORDER dated 9/17/21 that defendants' 42 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Farghaly's federal and state law claims for false arrest and false imprisonment; federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and excess ive force under the Fourth Amendment; and state law claims for assault and battery against Officer Soto, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Thus, all claims against Officer Soto are dismissed. The motion is otherw ise denied. The claims that remain to be adjudicated are Farghaly's excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against Traffic Agent Mitchell; his state law assault and battery claims against Traffic Agent Mitchell and the City; and Mohameds state law loss of consortium claim against Traffic Agent Mitchell and the City based on the remaining state law claims. ( Ordered by Judge Nina Gershon on 9/17/2021 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
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.
