Cases 1 - 10 of 45
Sexton v. Department of Homeless Services
as 26-1502
Plaintiff:
CHARLES H.M.S. SEXTON
Defendant:
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, WESTHAB, INC., PROJECT RENEWAL and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv03565
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
Colon v. Project Renewal Inc.
as 1:2025cv06695
Plaintiff:
CARMELO COLON
Defendant:
PROJECT RENEWAL INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Sexton v. Department of Homeless Services
as 25-1401
Plaintiff:
CHARLES H.M.S. SEXTON
Defendant:
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, BREAKING GROUND/ HEGEMAN AVENUE HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MCBRIDE and others
ONATOLU v. PROJECT RENEWAL FORT WASHINGTON MENS SHELTER
as 1:2025cv06880
Plaintiff:
ACLEKUNLE A. ONATOLU
Defendant:
PROJECT RENEWAL FORT WASHINGTON MENS SHELTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Great Southern Bank v. Morris, et al
as 2:2024cv02815
Defendant:
Project Renew, LLC, Lincoln Grove 1, LLC, Lincoln Grove 2, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Great Southern Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Sexton v. Department of Homeless Services et al
as 1:2024cv08895
Defendant:
Department of Homeless Services, Lander, Batters and others
Plaintiff:
Charles H.M.S. Sexton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Muzumala v. City of New York
as 24-806
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA MUZUMALA, -
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, BRONXWORKS, PROJECT RENEWAL and others
Hankerson v. HIPPA et al
as 1:2024cv01402
Plaintiff:
Theresa Ann Hankerson
Defendant:
HIPPA, Post Office, IRS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Auguste v. Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2024cv00921
Plaintiff:
Jean R. Auguste, Jr.
Defendant:
Deparatment of Corrections, Devon M. Radlin, Ilissa Brownstein and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
