Bey v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Bey v. City of New York

581 F. App'x 95

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

DocketNos. 13-3709, 13-3746

StatusPublished

This text of 581 F. App'x 95 (Bey v. City of New York) 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

Bey v. City of New York, 581 F. App'x 95 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff cross-appeals from an amended judgment entered following trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.).

Specifically, Plaintiff challenges (1) the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages awarded by the jury, (2) the sufficiency of the back pay award, and (3) the district court’s denial of further equitable or injunctive relief. See Bey v. City of New York, Nos. 99 Civ. 3873, 01 Civ. 9406 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2013). For the reasons stated in our Summary Order in the related appeal of Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733, we REVERSE the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages, but otherwise AFFIRM the Amended Judgment of the district court.

Defendants appeal in this action simply to reserve the issue of attorney’s fees pending resolution of the related appeal in Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733. Given our resolution of that action, Defendants’ appeal in this case is DISMISSED as moot.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff cross-appeals from an amended judgment entered following trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.).

Specifically, Plaintiff challenges (1) the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages awarded by the jury, (2) the sufficiency of the back pay award, and (3) the district court’s denial of further equitable or injunctive relief. See Bey v. City of New York, Nos. 99 Civ. 3873, 01 Civ. 9406 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2013). For the reasons stated in our Summary Order in the related appeal of Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733, we REVERSE the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages, but otherwise AFFIRM the Amended Judgment of the district court.

Defendants appeal in this action simply to reserve the issue of attorney’s fees pending resolution of the related appeal in Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733. Given our resolution of that action, Defendants’ appeal in this case is DISMISSED as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 F. App'x 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2014.