Legal Opinion
Sudarsky v. City of New York
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 22, 1991No. 89 Civ. 5150 (RJW)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WARD, District Judge.
Defendants City of New York (the “City”), New York City Planning Commission (“CPC”), New York City Department of City Planning (“DCP”), New York City Transit Authority (“TA”), and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) move, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs Peter Sudarsky (“Sudar-sky”) and Nominee Trading Corporation (“NTC”) d/b/a 225-227 East 52nd Street Associates cross-move, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for partial summary judgment as to…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Goldfine v. KellyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. DohertyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- HBP ASSOCIATES v. MarshDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Rivervale Realty v. Town of Orangetown, NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Sag Harbor Port Associates v. Village of Sag HarborDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.