Melnick et al v. Press
| 2:2006cv06686 |
| December 20, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| Arlene R. Lindsay |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Conversion |
| 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
205
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court concludes, after carefully considering the evidence introduced at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the controlling law on the issues presented, that : (1) the property at 15 Ohio Avenue should be partitioned and sold and the proceeds should be divided equally between Melnick and Press, after payment of any remaining liens or encumbrances; (2) neither Press nor Melnick is entitled to reimbursement for any payments of carrying costs or other expenses associated with 15 Ohio, or for any rental income allegedly received from the property; (3) Press did not oust Melnick from 15 Ohio; (4) the Delray Beach property should be partitioned and sold an d the proceeds should be divided equally between Melnick and Press, after payment of any outstanding mortgages, liens, or encumbrances; (5) Press is not liable to Melnick for conversion of insurance proceeds related to the Delray Beach property; (6) Press is not liable to Melnick for conversion of funds from a home equity line of credit on the 15 Ohio property; and (7) plaintiffs are not entitled to a constructive trust on the property located at 16 Nevada Avenue. Moreover, given the Court's findings, plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages regarding the fraudulent taking of the Delray Beach insurance proceeds and the 16 Nevada property is rendered moot. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/12/2011. (Graves, Kelly)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER re 190 : See attached order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 10/25/2010. c/ecf (Miller, Dina)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER denying 112 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 162 Motion for Sanctions. For the reasons discussed herein, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the constructive trust issue is denied, and plaintiffs' motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is denied. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 10/1/2010. (Weisgerber, Erica)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER denying 62 Motion to Compel: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to fix the amount of an attorneys' charging lien, pursuant to Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law, ma de by plaintiffs' former counsel, Wagner Davis P.C., is GRANTED in the amount of $26,844.91. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel compliance with this Court's Order of January 16, 2009 is DENIED as moot to the extent that it seeks the turnover of any discovery materials acquired by Wagner Davis from the defendant, and DENIED to the extent it seeks the turnover of any other materials in the possession of Wagner Davis in connection with this case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/28/2009. (Joo, Anna)
|
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
| Search for this case: Melnick et al v. Press | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
