Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Bongart v. P & G Brokerage Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv04151
Plaintiff:
Shterna Bongart
Defendant:
P & G Brokerage Inc., Allegiant Risk LLC and Maia Duban
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Berrios v. State of New York
as 22-145
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jesus Berrios, as legal guardian of Vanessa Rivera
Defendant / Appellee:
John/Jane Doe #1, Head of Vanessa Rivera's Medical Treatment Team, John/Jane Doe #2, Deputy Director of Inpatient Services, John/Jane Doe #3, Director of Quality and Risk Management and others
Defendant:
State of New York, City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and others
Johnson v. Sugerman Law Firm et al
as 3:2022cv00126
Plaintiff:
Robert W. Johnson
Defendant:
Sugerman Law Firm, Andrea Bartlett, Kristian E. Stefanide and others
Percy et al v. I Grace Co et al
as 1:2021cv02198
Plaintiff:
Albert E. Percy and Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation an IRC 501(c)(3) non-profit, as Class Representatives, Albert E. Percy and Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation
Defendant:
I Grace Co, L K Comstock & Company Inc, Jaroslawicz & Jaros PLLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Strujan v. Workers' Compensation Board et al
as 1:2018cv10403
Plaintiff:
Elena Strujan
Defendant:
David Sanua, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Paul M. Basuk and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Stephens v. Chief of Police
as 17-317
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Kalyn Stephens
Defendant - Appellee:
Heath Plemmons, Officer, Rutland City Police Department, Joyce Stevens, a/k/a Joyce of convenience store and post office building in Pittsfield, VT, Roger Stevens, of convenience store and Post Office building in Pitsfield, VT and others
Defendant:
Chief of Police, Vermont State Police, Hall, Officer, Vermont State Police, Harvey, United States Postal Service and others
Strujan et al v. Cuomo et al
as 1:2016cv05418
Defendant:
Zaza Aivazi, Appellate Division, Third Department, Paul Basuk and others
Plaintiff:
Elena Strujan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Adams v. New York State of Mental Healt
as 10-2363
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Sanders L. Adams
Defendant / Appellee:
The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Zucker Hillside Hospital at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in their individual and official capacity, Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, in their individual and official capacity, Georgette Lozier, in her individual capacity and others
Defendant:
The Office of the Director of Quality Care and Improvment for Persons with Disabilities, Commissioner New York State Office of Mental Health, Donald Sawyer, PHD, in his individual and official capacity and others
Adams v. The Office of the Director of
as 10-2363
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Sanders L. Adams
Defendant:
The Office of the Director of Quality Care and Improvment for Persons with Disabilities, The Office of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, Donald Sawyer, PHD, in his individual and official capacity and others
Defendant - Appellee:
The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Zucker Hillside Hospital at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in their individual and official capacity, The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, in their individual and official capacity, Georgette Lozier, in her individual capacity and others
Adams v. The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Zucker Hillside Hospital at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center et al
as 1:2008cv03888
Plaintiff:
Sanders Lamar Adams
Defendant:
The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Zucker Hillside Hospital at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center, The Office of the Director of Risk Management at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, The Office of the Director of Quality Care and Improvment for Persons with Disabilities and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
