Legal Opinion
Violette v. Armonk Associates, L.P.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 22, 1994No. 90 Civ. 4059 (RWS)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, James Violette (“Violette”) and Loretta Violette (“Mrs. Violette”) (collectively, the “Violettes”) have moved for an order, pursuant to Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P., granting them leave to amend their complaint to increase the ad damnum clause, and for an order excluding certain evidence from consideration in this matter. In addition, the Violettes appear to have moved for reargument of this Court’s prior opinions relating to their claims pursuant to New York Labor Law § 240(1) (“Labor Law Section 240(1)”).
Defendants Armonk Assoc., CMC Realty &…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Brady v. Town of ColchesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Tara Cartier Donald Coates v. Paul D. Lussier, Individually and in His Official CapacityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Violette v. Armonk Associates, L.P.District Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Mahar v. US XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC.District Court, N.D. New York · 2010
- Kaczmarek v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1995
- Seiden v. Omni Hotels Management CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2021