Abidekun v. New York City Transit Authority

Second Circuit

Abidekun v. New York City Transit Authority

49 F. App'x 360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

DocketDocket Nos. 01-9235, 01-9244

StatusPublished

This text of 49 F. App'x 360 (Abidekun v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abidekun v. New York City Transit Authority, 49 F. App'x 360 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED in No. 01-9235, and that the appeal is DISMISSED in No. 01-9244.

Despite the complicated procedural history of this case, the issues before us are relatively simple.

As to No. 01-9235, Appellant has filed a 60(b) motion for reconsideration, long after the decisions below were rendered, and some had already been affirmed on appeal. We believe that any procedural defects in the handling of appellants papers were harmless, and that the district court’s judgment lay well within its discretion. We have considered Appellant’s remaining claims, and deem them meritless. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

As to No. 01-9244, it appears that no such appeal exists but that documents from an earlier appeal were treated as a separate appeal in error. We therefore DISMISS the appeal in No. 01-9244.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED in No. 01-9235, and that the appeal is DISMISSED in No. 01-9244.

Despite the complicated procedural history of this case, the issues before us are relatively simple.

As to No. 01-9235, Appellant has filed a 60(b) motion for reconsideration, long after the decisions below were rendered, and some had already been affirmed on appeal. We believe that any procedural defects in the handling of appellants papers were harmless, and that the district court’s judgment lay well within its discretion. We have considered Appellant’s remaining claims, and deem them meritless. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

As to No. 01-9244, it appears that no such appeal exists but that documents from an earlier appeal were treated as a separate appeal in error. We therefore DISMISS the appeal in No. 01-9244.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. App'x 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abidekun-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ca2-2002.