Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor et al, No. 1:2005cv01127 - Document 54 (N.D.N.Y 2009)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: that the judgment filed on 1/29/2008 (Docket No 45) is VACATED as to the Title VII retaliation claims; the parties are directed to file & serve further memorandums of law on the Title VII retaliation claims (see footnote 3) on or before 7/31/2009; and Answering memorandums of law may be filed & served on or before 8/14/2009. There will be no further oral argument. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 7/15/2009. (see)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff, vs 1:05-CV-1127 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; LINDA ANGELLO, MARY HINES, and PATRICIA RHODES-HOOVER, Each Individually, and in their Official Capacity for the New York State Department of Labor, Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DONOHUE, SABO, VARLEY & HUTTNER, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 Aviation Road PO Box 15056 Albany, NY 12212-5056 KENNETH G. VARLEY, ESQ. HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 JAMES J. SEAMAN, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The Mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was filed in the Northern District of New York on July 14, 2009. (Docket No. 53). In accordance with the summary order, it is ORDERED that 1. The judgment filed on January 29, 2008 (Docket No. 45) is VACATED as to the Title VII retaliation claims; 2. The parties are directed to file and serve further memorandums of law on the Title VII retaliation claims (see footnote 3) on or before July 31, 2009; and 3. Answering memorandums of law may be filed and served on or before August 14, 2009 There will be no further oral argument. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2009 Utica, New York. - 2 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
