Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Fischer v. Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, Inc.
as 24-122
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES H. FISCHER
Defendant / Appellee:
BRUSHY MOUNTAIN BEE FARM, INC., BMBF HOLDINGS, INC., HADLEY CAPITAL and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1-10 and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10
Government Employees Insurance v. Landow, M.D.
as 22-804
Plaintiff:
Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Counter Claimant:
Paramount Medical Services, P.C., Preferred Medical, P.C., Sovereign Medical Services, P.C. and others
Defendant:
John Doe Defendants 1-10
Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses
as 21-2617
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester
Defendant / Appellee:
Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., Carmen Santiago, in her individual and professional capacity at Mutual, Brendan Keany, in his individual and professional capacity and others
Defendant:
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Penn South Cooperative Federal Credit Union, Michael Schwartz, Esq., in his individual and professional capacity and others
Government Employees Insurance v. Big Apple Medical Equipment
as 21-1030
Defendant / Appellant:
Big Apple Medical Equipment, Inc. and David Abayev
Defendant:
Suresh Paulos, D.O., Aleksandr Mostoyvoy, D.C., Peter Margulies, D.C. and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Government Employees Insurance v. Advanced Comprehensive Lab
as 20-4284
Defendant / Appellant:
Victoria Frenkel, Advanced Comprehensive Laboratory, LLC, DBA TopLab and Mark Gladstein, M.D.
Defendant:
John Doe Defendants "1-10"
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and others
Clune v. Barry, Jr.
as 19-2466
Respondent:
Winged Foot Golf Club, Inc., John D. Gillespie, as executor of the estate of George J. Gillespie, III, John Does, Nos. 1-10 and others
Petitioner:
Kevin P. Clune, As Executor of the Estate of Barbara B. Clune, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and James E. Fisher, Indivdually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses
as 19-1889
Defendant / Appellee:
Morris Benjamin, in his individual and capacity as President, CEO, and Board member of Mutual, Bette Levine, in her individual and professional capacity as Apartment Allcoations Chairperson and Board member of Mutual, Marc Boddewyn, in his individual and professional capacity at Mutual and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Andrea Malester and Tzvee Wood
Defendant:
John and Jane Doe, s 1-10, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Joseph Quigley, in his individual and professional capacity at HPD and others
Rochester v. County of Nassau
as 19-819
Defendant / Appellee:
Mario Mastropierro, County of Nassau and Christopher M. McCarthy, individually and in their official capacities
Defendant:
John Doe, Nos 1-10 being police officers and employees of the County of Nassau responsible for the torts committed against Decedent and Violation of the Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Decedent and the Plaintiff
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Karen Rochester, as Administratrix of the Estate of Collin T. Rochester, Deceased
Government Employees Insurance v. Infinity Health Products, Ltd.
as 12-2197
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Government Employees Insurance Co., Geico Indemnity Co., Geico General Insurance Company and others
Defendant:
Infinity Health Products, Ltd., ILya Mugerman, MSSA Corp. and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Oksana Kovalenko
Cedeno v. Intech Group
as 10-3861
Plaintiff:
ABC
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Eligio Cedeno and Cedel International Investment
Defendant:
Consorcio Microstar, Gustavo Arraiz, Corporate John Doe Defendants 1-10 and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Adina Mercedes Bastida Castillo, Alhambra Investments LLC, Ruben Rogelio Idler Osuna and others
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.
