Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

06-4746 - Conte v. County of Nassau, New York et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
06-4746 - Conte v. County of Nassau, New York et al
March 31, 2008
PDF | More
. (Totino, MaryAnn)ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the defendants' motion to dismiss is (1) GRANTED with respect to all claims against the defendants City of New York, the New York City Police Department, the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, and individual defendants Dillon, Rice, Bland and Vinal, (2) GRANTED as plaintiff's Section 1985 claim, Section 1986 claim, due process and equal protection claims, and the Lanham Act claims, and (3) GRANTED as to any claims brought against the individual County defendants in their official capacity (because such claims are duplicative of the Monell claim). The defendants' motions are DENIED in all other respects. The parties are to proceed with discovery on the remaining claims against remaining defendants County of Nassau, Emmons, Wasilausky, Wallace, Sardo, Falzarno, Shaska, and Guerra -- namely, the Section 1983 claims for false arrest/false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and violations of the First Amendment, the Section 1983 conspiracy claim, the Monell claim, the abuse of process claim, and the state law claims -- in accordance with the instructions of Magistrate Judge Boyle. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/31/08
February 13, 2009
PDF | More
ORDER denying 179 Motion for Reconsideration: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Larry Guerra's motion for reconsideration is denied in its entirety. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 2/13/2009. (Worden, Katherine)
May 15, 2009
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: The County defendants motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part. The County defendants are directed to submit for in camera review Document Numbers 26-29, 40-42, 44-46 and 51, as listed on the Revised Privilege Log dated March 13, 2009, within ten (10) days of the date of this decision, for a determination as to whether those documents should be exempt from disclosure as opinion work product. In all other respects, the motion is denied and the County defendants are directed to produce all of the remaining documents identified on the Revised Privilege Log to plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of this decision. The production shall be made pursuant to the terms of the confidentiality order, entered this same date. Counsel for the County defendants is directed to serve a copy of the attached decision on plaintiff upon receipt. So Ordered. SEE attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 5/15/2009. (c/m to pro se plaintiff) (Minerva, Deanna)
September 30, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER denying 390 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 404 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 407 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 409 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 411 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, that after a detailed review of the record and submissions of the parties, the Court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment in part and denies the motions for summary judgment in part. Specifically, the Court concludes that the County defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution, violation of the First Amendment, and conspiracy under ยง 1983. The Court further determines that plaintiff's federal and state-law false arrest (against defendant Wasilausky) and abuse of process (against all County defendants but Sardo) claims survive summary judgment because of disputed issues of material fact with respect to those claims. Plaintiff's Monell claim against the County of Nassau also survives summary judgment. The Court also concludes that defendant Sardo is entitled to summary judgment on all claims against her on grounds of absolute immunity as to the federal and state-law false arrest claims and lack of personal involvement with respect to the other claims, and defendants Emmons, Wallace, and Falzarano are entitled to summary judgment on the federal and state-law false arrest claim, because of lack of sufficient evidence of personal involvement in the investigation that led to the arrest. With respect to plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, the Court denies the County defendants and Guerra summary judgment on plaintiff's tortious interference with contractual relationships claim and grants summary judgment to defendant Shaska on that claim. Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims for defamation, injurious falsehood, and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the statute of limitations as against all defendants. Finally, with respect to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the same disputed issues of fact that preclude summary judgment in defendants' favor on the remaining claims also preclude summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/30/2010. (Weisgerber, Erica)
July 26, 2013
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the reasons contained herein, the County defendants' Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted in its entirety Wasilausky is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs false arrest claim and Emmons, Falzarano and Wallace are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim. The County defendants' Rule 59 motion for a new trial and plaintiff's Rule 59 motion for a new damages trial are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the County defendants and close this case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 7/26/2013. (Samplin, Ilissa)
April 2, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the reasons stated herein and on the record during the trial, plaintiffs Rule 59 motion for a new trial on the issue of damages for his claims of tortious interference with contractual relationships is denied. The judgment in plaintiffs favor will follow. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 4/2/2015. (Street, Caitlin)
March 3, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied in its entirety. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/3/2017. (Hammond, Daniel)