Airday v. The City Of New York , et al
Plaintiff: George Airday
Defendant: The City Of New York ,, Keith Schwan and David M. Frankel
Case Number: 1:2014cv08065
Filed: October 7, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Robert W. Sweet
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 268 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 267 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of The City Of New York,, David M. Frankel, Keith Schwam against Estate of George Airday. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2022, Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 4/28/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
August 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 258 ORDER granting 257 Letter Motion Application GRANTED. The stay in this action is lifted; the Court grants the Estate of George Airday's request to be substituted into this action as Plaintiff. Defendants must serve a suggestion of death and other relevant papers on the Estate not later than September 3, 2021. Defendants' must file any post-trial motions and respond to the previously filed proposed judgment not later than October 4, 2021. Plaintiff must respond not later tha n November 3, 2021. Defendants may reply in further support not later than November 17, 2021. SO ORDERED. George Airday terminated. Motions terminated: 257 LETTER MOTION to Continue and Lift Stay and Substitute addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Nathaniel B. Smith dated August 20, 2021 filed by Estate of George Airday. (Motions due by 10/4/2021. Responses due by 11/3/2021. Replies due by 11/17/2021.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/21/2021) (mml)
June 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 255 ORDER: granting 254 Letter Motion to Stay re: 254 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Stay all current deadlines addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from William A. Grey dated June 23, 2021. All deadlines in this case are STAYED for 60 days. The par ties must file a joint status report not later than August 23, 2021. To the extent relevant information becomes available prior to August 23, 2021, Defendants must file and serve a suggestion of death pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/23/2021) (ama)
June 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 251 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment and letter motion not later than the current deadline for any post-trial motions, July 2, 2021. Defendants must also address whether they agree with Plain tiff's proposal that Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent both parties are interested, the Court stands ready to refer the parties to the magistrate judge for a post-trial settlement conference. Should all parties be interested, they should file a joint letter with the Court requesting that this matter be referred to the magistrate judge for a settlement conference. SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 7/2/2021) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/15/2021) (ama)
June 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 238 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a proposed form of judgment not later than June 11, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any post-trial motions are due not later than July 2, 2021. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 7/2/2021.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/04/2021) (ama)
May 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 232 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that not later than Friday, May 28, 2021, at 12:00 p.m., both parties must submit a letter not to exceed three double-spaced pages explaining their position on this issue. Plaintiff must specifically address its change of position from the first trial in this action to the present trial. Defendants must specifically address whether they failed to object to Plaintiff's proposals because they have abandoned Second Circuit precedent as set out in Jeffes and progeny or whether they are simply indifferent to whether the jury is correctly charged on this issue. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/27/2021) (ama)
May 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 225 ORDER: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must appear for a teleconference with the Court on Friday, May 28, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss a revised draft of the Preliminary Jury Instructions, which the Court will send by email to the parties. T he parties should dial-in using to the conference using (888) 363-4749 // Access code: 3121171# // Security code: 8065#. All of those accessing the conference are reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the proceeding is prohibited by law. IT I S FURTHER ORDERED that the trial will be conducted in Courtroom 24B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Per the Court's prior instructions, the Court strongly recommends that the parties schedule a t ime to conduct a walkthrough of the courtroom and familiarize themselves with the relevant technology. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 5/28/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/25/2021) (ama)
May 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 224 ORDER denying 202 Motion in Limine. Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs wealth is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning Plaintiff's gun ownership and licensing is DENIED. P laintiff's motion in limine to exclude any reference to the prior trial in this case is DENIED as moot, as Defendants have agreed to refrain from eliciting testimony on or discussing the results of the prior trial. To the extent either party s eeks to impeach a witness with his or her testimony from the prior trial in this case, the party must refer to the testimony from that trial as "testimony from a prior proceeding." The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 202. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/21/2021) (cf)
May 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 217 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than May 11, 2021, the parties must provide the Court with unredacted, electronic copies of any exhibit they have proposed to admit into evidence in redacted form. The parties must identify the proposed re dactions in a manner that is clearly identifiable and legible (e.g., see-through highlighting or an unfilled red box). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 11, 2021, for each City Marshal to whom Plaintiff contends he is similarly situated, Plaintiff must explain his contention for why he is similar to that City Marshal. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's submission not later than May 14, 2021. The parties may each file a brief not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/05/2021) (ama)
May 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 216 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than May 10, 2021, in a letter brief not to exceed 5 pages, Plaintiff must show cause why - given his argument in support of his selective enforcement claim before Judge Sweet - he has not abandoned any sel ective enforcement claim premised on his termination from the Scofflaw Program in 2012. Plaintiff should note that the Court is not ordering him to show cause why all evidence regarding his termination from the Scofflaw Program should be excluded; s uch evidence could be admissible as evidence of damages - assuming there is proof that Plaintiff's termination from the Scofflaw Program was the natural consequence of Defendants' actions and the termination, as opposed to the City's adoption of the Paylock program, caused him financial harm. Defendants must respond in aletter brief not to exceed five pages not later than May 14, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/03/2021) (ama)
April 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 214 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must be prepared for trial to commence with jury selection on May 19, 2021. The Court will inform the parties immediately upon being informed whether its request to proceed with trial on May 19, 2021, has been approved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the Court receives permission to proceed with trial on May 19, 2021, the parties must appear for a Final Pretrial Conference on May 11, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 443, of the Thurgood M arshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY., (Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 4/29/2021) (nb)
January 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 208 ORDER granting 207 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File JPTO papers. Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/14/2021) (jca)
August 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 201 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Motions in limine must be filed no later than October 16, 2020. Responses must be filed no later than October 30, 2020. There will be no replies. If oral argument on any motions in limine is necessary, the parties wi ll be given at least two weeks' notice of the date of oral argument. A joint pretrial order, joint requests to charge, and proposed voir-dire questions (voir dire questions should be focused specifically on the facts of this case) must be filed no later than December 18, 2020. The parties are directed to the Undersigned's Individual Practices in Civil Cases for the required contents of their joint pretrial order. The parties will be given at least one month's notice of their trial date. A Final Pretrial Conference will be scheduled approximately 10 days before the first day of trial. The parties are reminded that the Court is happy to refer them to Magistrate Judge Aaron for a settlement conference upon joint request. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 10/16/2020., Pretrial Order due by 12/18/2020., Responses due by 10/30/2020) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/24/2020) (ama)
July 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 199 OPINION AND ORDER re: 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by The City Of New York, Keith Schwam. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion is DENIED. Not later than two weeks from this Order, the parties must submit a joint status letter via ECF addressing the following issues: (i)whether both parties would like a referral to Magistrate Judge Aaron for a settlement conference; (ii)whether both parties are willing to waive a jury trial; and (iii) whether both parties consent to all further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. If the parties do not agree, they are directed not to inform the Court of either party's position; they should only state whether there is agreement or not on the issue. The parties are warned that the Court cannot predict when it will be practicable to hold jury trials and that, when it is, criminal trials will have priority over civil trials. Whether the parties consent to a bench trial or wish to proceed with a jury trial, the Court will give them at least one-month warning of their trial date. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/16/2020) (rro)
September 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 183 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's post-trial motions are DENIED, and Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED. Judgment as a matter of law is granted to Defendant the City of New York on Plaintiff's due-process claim. The parties must appear for a conference on October 3, 2019, at 2:00 P.M. The parties must be prepared to discuss next steps on Plaintiff's equal-protection claim. See Dkt. 132 at 4-6. The Court reminds the parties that it is happy to refer them to mediation or to Magistrate Judge Parker for settlement discussions upon a joint request. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), no judgment shall issue until further order of this Court. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 10/3/2019 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/13/2019) (jca)
November 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 121 OPINION re: 94 MOTION in Limine; 101 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION in Limine; 99 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION in Limine: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion in limine is granted; Defendant's motions in limine are denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/30/2018) (jwh)
May 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 92 OPINION re: 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by The City Of New York David M. Frankel, Keith Schwam. Defendants the City of New York (the "City"), Keith Schwam ("Schwam") and David Frankel ("Frankel") (collectively, the "Defendants" ) have moved pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment dismissing the Amended Compl aint ("AC") of plaintiff George Airday ("Airday" or the &q uot;Plaintiff" ) alleging violations of 42 U. S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (As further set forth in this Order.) For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part, and denied in part. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/10/2018) (cf)
September 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 31 OPINION re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. filed by Keith Schwan, The City Of New York,, David M. Frankel. Based on the conclusions set forth above, the motion to dismiss with respect to the first amendment and equal protection claims is granted, and the motion is denied with respect to the procedural due process claim. Leave to replead within 20 days is granted. It is so ordered. (As further set forth within this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/15/2015) (ajs)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Airday v. The City Of New York , et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: George Airday
Represented By: Nathaniel B. Smith
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: The City Of New York ,
Represented By: Jeremy Laurence Jorgensen
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: Keith Schwan
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: David M. Frankel
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?