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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

08-3088 - Leogrande v. Tannenbalm et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
08-3088 - Leogrande v. Tannenbalm et al
February 16, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION: The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to consolidate this action with another action commenced by plaintiff under 12-cv-707, which arises from the same factual nexus and implicates the same legal issues. The Clerk of the Court shall consolidate the two above cases under the first case filed docket 08-cv-3088. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case 12-cv-707 and direct any further filings in that case to 08-cv-3088. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 2/16/2012. (Bollbach, Jean)
March 29, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER granting 96 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and converting the remainder to summary judgment and deferring ruling on 98 Motion to Dismiss by Anthony Buonagvrio, Suffolk County; granting 109 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 112 Motion for Summary Judgment; deferring ruling on 113 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 117 Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating 119 Motion to Dismiss: For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the New York State Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The Court also grants the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. With respect to the Suffolk County Defendants, the Court dismisses plaintiff's Monell claims and claim concerning the Miranda violation with prejudice, and dismisses plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim against the Suffolk County Defendants without prejudice. Additionally, the Court converts the Suffolk County Defendants' motion to dismiss the false arrest claim into a motion for summary judgment, and will give plaintiff an opportunity to respond before ruling on the motion. With respect to any state law claims against the Suffolk County Defendants, the Court will not determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims until it decides the Suffolk County Defendant's converted motion for summary judgment. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915 (a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/29/2013. (Memorandum and Order sent FCM by Chambers to pro se plaintiff 3/29/13)
March 9, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER granting 202 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the Suffolk County Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the malicious prosecution and Monell claims. Given the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim for defamation, and thus, dismisses such claim without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/9/2016. (Dolecki, Lauren)