DeAngelo v. Maximus et al, No. 7:2019cv07957 - Document 40 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: PARTIAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Final Judgment is entered in favor o defendant SULLIVAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES dismissing and removing said defendant from the action, in accordance with FRCP Rule 54(b), **and the Court finding no just reason for delay, given that the claims remaining are not similar or closely related to the claims against the dismissed Defendant, see Ginett v. Computer Task Group, Inc., 962 F.2d 1085, 1091-96 (2d Cir. 1992); Hogan v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 961 F.2d 1021, 1025 (2d Cir. 1992). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 1/14/2021) (mml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DeAngelo v. Maximus et al Doc. 40 U NI T E D S T A T E S DI S T RI C T C O U R T S O U T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F N E W Y O R K ------------------------------------------------------------------- X D E B O R A H D E A N G E L O, - a g ai nst- C a s e #: 7: 1 9- c v- 0 7 9 5 7 ( C S) Pl ai ntiff, P A R TI A L A N D FI N A L J U D G ME NT M A XI M U S/ N Y M E DI C AI D C H OI C E, S U L LI V A N C O U N T Y D E P A R T M E N T O F S O CI A L S E R VI C E S, D ef e n d a nts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X W h er e as, t h e a b o v e e ntitl e d a cti o n h a vi n g b e e n assi g n e d t o t h e H o n or a bl e C at h y S ei b el, U S DJ; a n d J u d g e S ei b el h a vi n g iss u e d a B e n c h R uli n g o n D e c e m b er 4, 2 0 2 0 gr a nti n g D ef e n d a nt S ulli v a n C o u nt y D e p art m e nt' s m oti o n t o dis miss Pl ai ntiff s C o m pl ai nt; *it is O R D E R E D, A DJ U D G E D A N D D E C R E E D, t h at Fi n al J u d g m e nt is e nt er e d i n f a v or of d ef e n d a nt S U L LI V A N C O U N T Y D E P A R T M E N T O F S O CI A L S E R VI C E S dis missi n g a n d r e m o vi n g s ai d d ef e n d a nt fr o m t h e a cti o n, i n a c c or d a n c e wit h F R C P R ul e 5 4( b ). D at e d: J a n u ar y _1 4 _ , 2 0 2 1 H o n. C at h y S ei b el, U S DJ * * a n d t h e C o urt fi n di n g n o j ust r e as o n f or d el a y, gi v e n t h at t h e cl ai ms r e m ai ni n g ar e n ot si mil ar or cl os el y r el at e d t o t h e cl ai ms a g ai nst t h e dis miss e d D ef e n d a nt, see Gi nett v. C o m p uter T as k Gr o u p, I nc., 9 6 2 F. 2 d 1 0 8 5, 1 0 9 1- 9 6( 2 d Cir. 1 9 9 2); H o g a n v. C o ns oli d ate d R ail C or p ., 9 6 1 F. 2 d 1 0 2 1, 1 0 2 5 ( 2 d Cir. 1 9 9 2), Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
