Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nicholas L. Vassenelli v. the City of Syracuse

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 5, 2012

NICHOLAS L. VASSENELLI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF SYRACUSE;
STEPHANIE A. MINER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE;
FRANK L. FOWLER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF SYRACUSE; JUDY CULETON, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF THE SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MATTHEW DRISCOLL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS FORMER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE;
GARY MIGUEL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF SYRACUSE; SERGEANT RICHARD PERRIN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; POMCO GROUP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN AGENT FOR THE CITY OF SYRACUSE, A/K/A POMCO, INC.;
SHARON MILLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE;
SHARON ERIKSSON, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE; AND
DAVID BARRETTE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David N. Hurd United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action against the City of Syracuse ("City"), several present and former City employees, POMCO Group a/k/a POMCO, Inc., ("POMCO"), a third-party benefits administrator for the City, and a POMCO employee, asserting various federal and state law causes of action arising out of the City's payment of benefits to the plaintiff under New York General Municipal Law section 207-c. On January 30, 2012, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report--Recommendation that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation.

Based upon a de novo determination of the portions of the Report-- Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report--Recommendation is accepted in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120305

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.