Aktas et al v. JMC Development Co., Inc. et al
| Necdet Aktas and Lisa Aktas |
| JMC Development Co., Inc., Joseph M. Cantanucci, Jr., Granville Glass and Granite, Inc., Granville Glass and Granite of Hudson Falls, Inc., Stephen M. Jung, James P. Lynch, P.E., PLLC, Scott Hamilton, Brady's Wood Floors LLC and County of Warren |
| 1:2009cv01436 |
| December 24, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Albany Office |
| Warren |
| David R. Homer |
| Gary L. Sharpe |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
203
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying 196 Motion; denying 197 Motion for Judgment NOV; denying 197 Motion for New Trial: ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion (Dkt. No. 197) is DENIED; it is further ORDERED, that defendant Jungs motion to apply General Obligations Law § 15-108 (Dkt. No. 196) is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 4/25/13. (ban)
|
|
Filing
174
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying 159 Motion in Limine; denying 166 Motion in Limine. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 1/3/13. (ban)
|
|
Filing
125
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that defendant JMC and Cantanuccis motion for spoliation sanctions (Dkt. No. 97 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Order; it is further ORDERED, that defendant JMC and Cantanuccis mot ion for summary judgment and dismissal (Dkt. No. 97 ) of plaintiffs fourth cause of action (Fraud) as against JMC and Cantanucci is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED, that defendant JMC and Cantanuccis motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 97 ) is den ied in all other respects; it is furtherORDERED, that third-party defendant Terrys motion for spoliation sanctions(Dkt. No. 106 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, consistent with this Order, it is further ORDERED, that defendant Lynchs motion to serve an answer to the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 102 ) is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED, that defendant Lynchs motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 102 ) isDENIED; it is further ORDERED, that defendant Lynchs motion for spoliation sanctions (Dkt. No. 102 ) is DENIED with leave to renew; it is further ORDERED, that third-party defendant Northwoods motion for summary judgment anddismissal of the third-party complaint and all cross claims (Dkt. No. 96 ) is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED, that third-party defendant North Easts motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the third-party complaint and all cross claims (Dkt. No. 99 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that a Settlement Conference is scheduled in this matter for Friday, August 24, 20 12 at 10:30 A.M. in Albany. The parties are directed to appear at that time and make submissions in advance of the conference as directed in this Courts Order Setting SettlementConference. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 6/28/12. (ban)
|
|
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER, that the Aktases' 21 Motion to Amend is GRANTED as to the claims of fraud and personal liability, but is DENIED as to the negligence claim against Warren County, that JMC's 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED, that Warren County's 12 Motion to Dismiss Aktases' negligence claim is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/14/2010. (jel, )
|
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 Northern 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.
