Blake v. Rozowicz

Blake v. Rozowicz

Plaintiff:	Richard P. Blake
Defendant:	Michael S. Rozowicz
Case Number:	6:2009cv00942
Filed:	August 18, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Utica Office
County:	Fulton
Presiding Judge:	David N. Hurd
Presiding Judge:	George H. Lowe
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
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
February 4, 2013	Filing 86 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 43 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; The causes of action brought pursuant to New York Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-a and 276-a are DISMISSED; Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the causes of action related to the proceeds from the sale of the Catskill dealership, and those claims are DISMISSED; Plaintiff' ;s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the causes of action related to the $18,128.40 in corporate checks made payable to defendant in November 2005; Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with res pect to the causes of action related to the conveyance of the equipment in the Catskill dealership to defendant; A damages hearing will be conducted on March 18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Utica, New York; and Defendant's request to preclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Louis Spada, is DENIED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 2/4/2013. (see)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 4, 2013

Filing 86 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 43 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; The causes of action brought pursuant to New York Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-a and 276-a are DISMISSED; Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the causes of action related to the proceeds from the sale of the Catskill dealership, and those claims are DISMISSED; Plaintiff' ;s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the causes of action related to the $18,128.40 in corporate checks made payable to defendant in November 2005; Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with res pect to the causes of action related to the conveyance of the equipment in the Catskill dealership to defendant; A damages hearing will be conducted on March 18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Utica, New York; and Defendant's request to preclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Louis Spada, is DENIED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 2/4/2013. (see)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Blake v. Rozowicz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Richard P. Blake
Represented By:	John J. Hoke
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 ]
Defendant: Michael S. Rozowicz
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?