Caldarola v. Spano

Second Circuit

Caldarola v. Spano

96 F. App'x 772

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2004

DocketNo. 03-7215-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 772 (Caldarola v. Spano) 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

Caldarola v. Spano, 96 F. App'x 772 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Rocco Caldarola appeals from a summary judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) dismissing Caldarola’s complaint against Westchester County alleging false arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this ease is assumed.

This Court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Young v. County of Fulton, 160 F.3d 899, 902 (2d Cir.1998). In doing so, we are required to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and to draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232, 235 (2d Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order. See Caldarola v. DeCiuseis, No. 00 Civ. 2944(CM)(MDF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2002).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Rocco Caldarola appeals from a summary judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) dismissing Caldarola’s complaint against Westchester County alleging false arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this ease is assumed.

This Court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Young v. County of Fulton, 160 F.3d 899, 902 (2d Cir.1998). In doing so, we are required to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and to draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232, 235 (2d Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order. See Caldarola v. DeCiuseis, No. 00 Civ. 2944(CM)(MDF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2002).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldarola-v-spano-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack