Fridman v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Fridman v. City of New York

52 F. App'x 157

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketNo. 02-7232

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 52 F. App'x 157 (Fridman 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

Fridman v. City of New York, 52 F. App'x 157 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of December, two thousand and two.

Mikail Fridman appeals a decision and order of the United States District Court [158]*158for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.) granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing Fridman’s complaint. We are in substantial agreement with the reasons stated by the district court for dismissing the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Fridman v. City of New York, 183 F.Supp.2d 642 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Based on Fridman’s allegations, it would seem that the only possible defendant to his § 1983 suit is Ms. Claxon, an employee of New York City’s Office of Employment Services. She was not, however, named as a defendant in the suit. And we express no opinion as to whether an action against her would now be barred by the statute of limitations.

Since Fridman withdrew his other federal claims, id. at 656, his state-law claims were properly dismissed without prejudice. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of December, two thousand and two.

Mikail Fridman appeals a decision and order of the United States District Court [158]*158for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.) granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing Fridman’s complaint. We are in substantial agreement with the reasons stated by the district court for dismissing the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Fridman v. City of New York, 183 F.Supp.2d 642 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Based on Fridman’s allegations, it would seem that the only possible defendant to his § 1983 suit is Ms. Claxon, an employee of New York City’s Office of Employment Services. She was not, however, named as a defendant in the suit. And we express no opinion as to whether an action against her would now be barred by the statute of limitations.

Since Fridman withdrew his other federal claims, id. at 656, his state-law claims were properly dismissed without prejudice. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fridman-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack