Vrazel v. Long Island Rail Road

Vrazel v. Long Island Rail Road

Plaintiff:	Charles Vrazel
Defendant:	Long Island Rail Road
Case Number:	2:2014cv06209
Filed:	October 23, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arlene R. Lindsay
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Federal Employer's Liability
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 13, 2017	Filing 63 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated above, S&B's 60 motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that its motion for summary judgment dismissing LIRR's contractual in demnification claim pursuant to Rule 56 is granted. It is denied to the extent that LIRR has presented sufficient facts for its contributory negligence claim to be presented to a jury. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/13/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
November 8, 2016	Filing 59 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; Based on the foregoing, S&Bs motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Defendants common law indemnification claim against it is dismissed with prejudice. It is denied to the extent that there are triable issues of fact regarding the Defendants common law contribution claim and the Defendants contractual indemnification claim. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/8/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 13, 2017

Filing 63 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated above, S&B's 60 motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that its motion for summary judgment dismissing LIRR's contractual in demnification claim pursuant to Rule 56 is granted. It is denied to the extent that LIRR has presented sufficient facts for its contributory negligence claim to be presented to a jury. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/13/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)

November 8, 2016

Filing 59 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; Based on the foregoing, S&Bs motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Defendants common law indemnification claim against it is dismissed with prejudice. It is denied to the extent that there are triable issues of fact regarding the Defendants common law contribution claim and the Defendants contractual indemnification claim. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/8/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)

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: Vrazel v. Long Island Rail Road
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Long Island Rail Road
Represented By:	Karla R Alston
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: Charles Vrazel
Represented By:	Valerie J. Lauriello
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?