McIntosh v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Second Circuit

McIntosh v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

23 F. App'x 77

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

DocketDocket No. 01-7481

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 F. App'x 77 (McIntosh v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.) 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

McIntosh v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 23 F. App'x 77 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of [78]*78said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Steven McIntosh appeals from the District Court’s May 22, 2001 order denying his motion for sanctions and to vacate a settlement agreement. The order was entered on March 23, 2001, and this timely appeal followed.

Before the District Court, plaintiff brought a motion to “(1) impose sanctions upon Consolidated Edison ... for breach of the Settlement Agreement so ordered by [the District Court] on April 30, 1997 ... whereby Mr. McIntosh released his Title VII claims against [Consolidated] Edison, and (2) vacate the Settlement Agreement.” McIntosh v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., No. 96-3624, slip op. at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2001). The District Court denied the motion, finding that “[b]oth claims [were] wholly frivolous and duplicative of issues already fully litigated.” Id.

Plaintiff raises the same issues on appeal.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its March 22, 2001 Order.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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 [78]*78said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Steven McIntosh appeals from the District Court’s May 22, 2001 order denying his motion for sanctions and to vacate a settlement agreement. The order was entered on March 23, 2001, and this timely appeal followed.

Before the District Court, plaintiff brought a motion to “(1) impose sanctions upon Consolidated Edison ... for breach of the Settlement Agreement so ordered by [the District Court] on April 30, 1997 ... whereby Mr. McIntosh released his Title VII claims against [Consolidated] Edison, and (2) vacate the Settlement Agreement.” McIntosh v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., No. 96-3624, slip op. at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2001). The District Court denied the motion, finding that “[b]oth claims [were] wholly frivolous and duplicative of issues already fully litigated.” Id.

Plaintiff raises the same issues on appeal.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its March 22, 2001 Order.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. App'x 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack