Cases 21 - 30 of 45
DaCosta v. City of New York
as 18-522
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Maxie DaCosta
Defendant:
City of New York, Detective David Shapiro, Shield #6054 and Police Officers #1 through #20 "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", individually and in their official capacities (the names of John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names of these individuals are presently unknown)
Defendant - Appellant:
Detective Fortunato Tranchina, Shield #509, individually and in his official capacity
Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.
as 17-3388
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Mei Xing Yu, individual, on behalf of all other employees similarly situated
Defendant:
John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10
Defendant - Appellant:
Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., Shuji Yagi, Kunitsugu Nakata and others
Sawabini v. O'Connor Hospital
as 17-3389
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Lutfallah T. Sawabini
Defendant - Appellee:
Edward McGrath, Harold Southworth, Chief Security Agent, Mary McCarthy, Registered Nurse and others
Defendant:
O'Connor Hospital, New York State Division of Human Rights, Victor DeAmelia and others
Nunez v. City of New York
as 17-2180
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Francisco Nunez
Defendant - Appellee:
City of New York, a municipal entity, Detective Damian Diedrick, Shield #923769 in their individual and official capacities, Detective Cliff Acosta, Shield #982718 in their individual and official capacities and others
Defendant:
John and/or Jane Does Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc., (Whose identities are unknown but who are known to be police officers of the New York City Police Department), all of whom are sued individually and in their official capacities and Richard and/or Rachel Roes Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc., (Whose identities are unknown but who are known to be supervisory personnel of the New York City Police Department), all of whom are sued individually and in their official capacities
Simon v. City of New York
as 17-1281
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Alexina Simon
Defendant - Appellee:
City of New York, P.O. Lee, P.O. Evelyn and others
Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.
as 17-1067
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Mei Xing Yu, individual, on behalf of all other employees similarly situated
Defendant - Appellant:
Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., Shuji Yagi, Kunitsugu Nakata and others
Purdie v. Cuomo
as 17-933
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Sidney E. Purdie
Defendant - Appellee:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor, Anthony J. Annucci, Griffin and others
Defendant:
John Doe Office Counsel and John Doe Correctional Officer
Clark v. NYPD (New York Police Departme
as 17-659
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Sean A. Clark
Defendant - Appellee:
Mayor John Doe, or Jane Doe and New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant:
NYPD New York Police Department, Commissioner, Mayor Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC and John Doe, or Jane Doe
Adamou v. The County of Spotsylvania, Vi
as 17-255
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Idrissa Adamou
Defendant:
The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia, Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office, John and/or Jane Does Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc., (whose identities are unknown but who are known to be police officers and employees of the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office) in their individual capacities and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Detective Edward J. Doyle, in his individual capacity
Amid v. Lamb
as 16-3959
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Farah Maleki Amid
Defendant - Appellee:
John M. Chase, individually and in his official capacity, Harvey Marx, individually, Henry Foster, individually and in his official capacity and others
Defendant:
Old Brookville Police Department, Police Officers John Does and Jane Does, said names being fictitious, their true names and identities unknown, intended to describe and identify arresting police officers employed and acting on behalf of the Old Village of Brookville Police Department and John Does and Jane Does, said names being fictitious, their true names and identities unknown, intended to describe and identify arresting police officers employed and acting on behalf of the Glen Cove Hospital
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.
