Civil Rights Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 40
TODD v. RYAN RAMAEL TODD ESTATE et al
as 2:2022cv04777
Plaintiff: RONNIE RAMAEL TODD
Defendant: RYAN RAMAEL TODD ESTATE, Not Named Graham Estate, CHRISTINE RIDLEY ESTATE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jeffery v. City of New York
as 22-2745
Plaintiff / Appellant: Lamel Jeffery, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Thaddeus Blake, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated and Chayse Pena, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
Defendant / Appellee: City of New York, Eric Adams, Mayor of New York City, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Bill De Blasio, individually and others
Defendant: Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, Individually and in her Official Capacity and P.O.s John Doe #1-50, Individually and in their Official Capacity, (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown)
Dr. A v. Hochul
as 22-650
Plaintiff: Technologist P.
Plaintiff / Appellant: Dr. A., Nurse A., Dr. C. and others
Defendant / Appellee: Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, in her official capacity, Howard A. Zucker, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, in his official capacity, Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, in her official capacity and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2021cv11154
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv11152
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-2273
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff - Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Neroni v. Zayas
as 14-1369
Plaintiff - Appellant: Frederick J. Neroni
Defendant - Appellee: Steven D. Zayas, Attorney, Committee of Professional Standards, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, In his official and individual capacity, Karen Peters, in her official capacity as Chief Justice of New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, Monica A. Duffy, Chairperson, Committee of Professional Standards, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, in her official capacity and others
New York State Rifle and Pisto v. Cuomo
as 14-37
Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant: William Nojay, Thomas Galvin, Roger Horvath and others
Defendant: Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney for Erie County, Gerald J. Gill, Chief of Police for the Town of Lancaster, New York and Lawrence Friedman
Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York and Joseph A. D'Amico, Superintendent of the New York State Police
New York State Rifle and Pisto v. Cuomo We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 14-36
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee: William Nojay, Thomas Galvin, Roger Horvath and others
Defendant - Appellee: Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney for Erie County, Gerald J. Gill, Chief of Police for the Town of Lancaster, New York and Lawrence Friedman
Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York and Joseph A. D'Amico, Superintendent of the New York State Police
Bender v. City of New York
as 13-4873
Plaintiff - Appellant: Sherry Bender
Defendant - Appellee: Robert Corcoran, Lieutenant, N.Y.P.D., 009 Precinct, personally and professionally, City of New York, Svenstrip, Police Officer, Shield # 8986, personally and officially 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.


Why Is My Information Online?