Flemming, et al v. The City of New York, et al, No. 1:2002cv04113 - Document 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION re: 163 MOTION to Vacate filed by Woodrow Flemming, 167 MOTION to Amend/Correct 161 Clerk's Judgment filed by Woodrow Flemming. For the reasons given in the 11/18/08, opinion denying Flemming's motion to overturn or otherwise disturb the 7/16/08, verdict, Flemming's 12/19/08, and 2/3/10, motions to overturn or otherwise disturb the 7/16/08, verdict are denied. (Signed by Judge Robert L. Carter on 4/21/2010) (tro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .............................................................. X WOODROW FLEMMING, Plaintiff, -against- OPINION 02 Civ. 4 113 (RLC) EDWARD VELARDI, et al., Defendants. X ROBERT L. CARTER, District Judge Woodrow F l e m i n g was arrested on February 28, 2001, by New York City Police Officers Edward Velardi and Christopher Tenore. On May 3 1, 2002, F l e m i n g brought a civil action against defendants, alleging false arrest and excessive use of force. On July 16, 2008, following a three day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Flemming moved pro se pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c), 34, 50(b), 51, 52, 59(b), and 60(b)(6) to overturn or otherwise disturb that verdict. On November 18,2008, the court denied those motions and ordered the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Familiarity with the November 18, 2008, opinion is assumed. On December 19,2008, and February 3,2010, F l e m i n g moved anew pursuant to Rules 59 and 60(b) to overturn or otherwise disturb the July 16, 2008, verdict. For the reasons given in the November 18, 2008, opinion denying Fleming's motion to overturn or otherwise disturb the July 16, 2008, verdict, Fleming's December 19; 2008, and February 3, 2010, motions to overturn or otherwise disturb the July 16, 2008, verdict are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York April 21,2010 r"' 2 Robert L. Carter United States District Judge
]]>
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.
