June 5, 2014 2014 WL 2533843 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. New York. Angel Alirio ALMENDARES, Teodosio Linares, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OEG FRUIT AND VEGETABLE and John Doe, Defendants. No. 13–CV–3413 (MKB). Signed June 5, 2014. Attorneys and Law Firms Arthur Z. Schwartz, Richard Soto, Advocates for Justice, Chartered Attorneys, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Michael D. Yim,

May 21, 2014 117 A.D.3d 955 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, appellant, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 100, respondent. Synopsis Background: New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) brought Article 75 proceeding against local transport workers union to permanently stay arbitration of grievance on behalf of bus operator with history of color blindness. The Supreme Court, King

2014 WL 2534880 April 8, 2014 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. New York. Angel Alirio ALMENDARES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OEG FRUIT AND VEGETABLE, et al., Defendants. No. CV 2013–3413(MKB)(MDG). Signed April 8, 2014. Attorneys and Law Firms Arthur Z. Schwartz, Richard Soto, Advocates for Justice, Chartered Attorneys, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Michael D. Yim, Felicello Law, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants. REPORT AND RE

March 31, 2014. 12 F.Supp.3d 418 United States District Court, E.D. New York. Cecil LEWIS, as Administrator of the Estate of Stephanie Lewis, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. No. 04–cv–2331 (SLT)(MDG). Signed March 31, 2014. Synopsis Background: Muslim employee brought action against city transit authority, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, NewYork State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYC

United States District Court, E.D. New York 2/10/2014 Townes, United States District Judge: In September 2011, plaintiffs Adana Jeffrey Biamby and Paulette McBurnette commenced this action on behalf of themselves and their fellow employees at the Fine Fare Market in Brooklyn, alleging that their employer, defendant Mustafa Abu Saab, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous State law provisions by not paying the minimum wage or time-and-a-half for overtime. Plaintif

Argued January 8, 2013; decided February 14, 2013 Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 83 AD3d 407, reversed. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Richard J. Montes and Matthew W. Naparty of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), and Schwartz, Goldstone & Campisi, LLP, New York City (Herbert Rodriguez, Jr., of counsel), for respondents. Michael Jaffee, New York City, and Brian

115 A.D.3d 217 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. Robert M. TAMBURINO, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, L.P., Defendant–Appellant. Feb. 11, 2014. Synopsis Background: Employees, food and beverage servers at sports and entertainment complex, brought class action against employer, alleging that employer retained a portion of a mandatory “service charge” that should have been allocated to them as gratuity in violation of statu

Oct. 17, 2011. 823 F.Supp.2d 166 United States District Court, E.D. New York. Marc PENBERG, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, Defendant. No. 08 CV 1534 (CLP). Synopsis Background: Employee brought action against former employer, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated based on disability and age discrimination, in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and subjected to retaliation in violation of ADA, ADEA, Fam

OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 10/6/2011 CSTG, L. 375, 4 OCB2d 61 (BCB 2011) (IP) (Docket No. BCB-2796-09). Summary of Decision: The Union alleged that NYCHA discriminated against Petitioner, a Union representative, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3), by refusing to provide Petitioner with voicemail, rescinding daily breaks for employees in his unit, and instructing him to remove all Union-related material from his work space. NYCHA contended that the voicemail cl

Office of Collective Bargaining 8/18/2011 Feder, 9 OCB2d 33 (BCB 2016) (IP) (Docket No. BCB-4147-16) Summary of Decision: Petitioner filed a pro se verified improper practice petition alleging that NYCHA violated § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) of the NYCCBL by unilaterally revoking his ability to perform a “split shift” schedule, in retaliation for his union activities. He also alleged that NYCHA’s time and leave policies discriminated against and interfered with union activities. Pe

2010 WL 2787548 July 14, 2010. Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements. United States District Court, E.D. New York. Thomas A. AULICINO, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY (DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES), Defendant. No. 03 CV 2395(SJ)(ALC). Attorneys and Law Firms Schwartz, Lichten & Bright, P.C., by: Arthur Z. Schwartz, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. New York City Law Dept., by: A

662 F.Supp.2d 285 United States District Court, E.D. New York. ACORN; Acorn Institute, Inc.; and New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America; Shaun Donovan, Secretary of the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment; Peter Orszag, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of Treasury of the United States, Defendants. No. 09–cv–4888 (NG). Dec. 11, 2009. Synopsis Background: National organizat

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 9/8/2009 SACK, Circuit Judge: The plaintiff, Thomas Aulicino, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Aulicino is a Motor Vehicle Operator (“MVO”) at the Hinsdale Depot of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”). He claims that he was denied a promotion at DHS because he is white, was subjected to a discriminatory hostile work environment, and was retalia

United States District Court, S.D. New York 9/10/2008 COLLEEN McMAHON, District Judge On February 14, 2008, I issued an opinion granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Several days earlier, defendant had withdrawn its motion, so that it could file a revised motion, one that also sought summary judgment on its counterclaims against plaintiff. I therefore withdrew my February 14 opinion and the parties submitted new briefs addressing b

The plaintiff pro se Roy Commer (“Commer”) has moved for the following relief: (1) leave pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 to amend his complaint, (2) reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 of the December 7, 2004 order and opinion, see Commer v. McEntee, 00 Civ. 7913 (RWS), 2004 WL 2797053 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2004) (the “December 7 Opinion”); and (3) additional discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. The defendants Gerald McEntee (“McEntee”), John Seferian (“Seferian”), American

United States District Court S.D. New York Oct. 2, 2006. MEMORANDUM & ORDER DOLINGER, Magistrate J. *1 Following the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff Lincoln Bernier based on a jury verdict on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff has moved for an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendant has opposed, contending that the jury verdict was based on state law, and hence does not trigger eligibility for a fee award. We reject defendant’s argument and a

Court of Appeals of New York 12/20/2005 Background: Employer sought review of arbitration award reducing penalty imposed by employer on employee under collective bargaining agreement (CBA) from dismissal to time-served suspension and directing employer to reinstate employee. The Supreme Court, Kings County, Knipel, J., granted petition and vacated arbitration award. Union appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 13 A.D.3d 542, 787 N.Y.S.2d 80, affirmed. Union appealed

3 N.Y.3d 633 (2004) 816 N.E.2d 191 782 N.Y.S.2d 401 In the Matter of LESLIE DOWLEYNE et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Decided June 29, 2004. Attorney(s) appearing for the Case Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure, P.C., New York City (Arthur Z. Schwartz and Elizabeth M. Pilecki of counsel), for appellants. Richard Schoolman, Brooklyn, for respondent. Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT,

99 N.Y.2d 1 Court of Appeals of New York. In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100, AFL–CIO, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents, v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100, AFL–CIO, et al., Appellants. Oct. 10, 2002. In separate proceedings, transit authority petitioned to vacate arbitration awards that upheld finding of employee misconduct but red

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. 3/7/2002 Opinion RUBIN, J. AT ISSUE ON THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW § 1205(5) REQUIRES RESPONDENTS NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ITS PRESIDENT AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (COLLECTIVELY, THE TA) TO GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND OBTAIN THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRIOR TO ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE HOURS DURING WHICH 53 OF ITS TOKEN BOOTHS A