Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman

Second Circuit

Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman

2 F. App'x 78

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 2001

DocketNo. 00-7601

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. App'x 78 (Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman) 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

Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman, 2 F. App'x 78 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Agia Dockery appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.) entered on March 31, 2000, dismissing her complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it did not possess jurisdiction to hear appellant’s claims. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. See Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman, 90 F.Supp.2d 233 (E.D.N.Y.2000).

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 decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Agia Dockery appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.) entered on March 31, 2000, dismissing her complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it did not possess jurisdiction to hear appellant’s claims. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. See Dockery v. Cullen & Dykman, 90 F.Supp.2d 233 (E.D.N.Y.2000).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. App'x 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dockery-v-cullen-dykman-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack