Debra C. Freeman

“Defendants have moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 37), seeking dismissal of all of Wali's claims. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' summary judgment motion is granted.”

“Plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 30) ... and a finding by the Court that the vessel was unseaworthy as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied.”

“Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. 32.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

“The Court therefore grants Defendants' cross-motion (Dkt. 55) for summary judgment in part, and dismisses all of Plaintiff's claims against Global and Kaczor, as well as any of Plaintiff's claims against Bobko that are based on the Global transactions. Defendant's cross-motion is otherwise denied.”

“the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the absence of material issues of fact. Accordingly, that motion (Dkt. 48) is denied, as is Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Bobko's counterclaim.”

“that motion (Dkt. 48) is denied, as is Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Bobko's counterclaim.”

“For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioners' motion to compel is denied, except that Respondent is directed to produce certain documents to this Court for in camera review.”

“For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to the claim for conversion and denied as to the claim for violation of New York Judiciary Law.”

“the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Freeman dated August 23, 2013 shall be ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims of discrimination based on age and religion but DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (‘ADA’).”

In a damages inquest following default judgment in a home-renovation contractor case, Freeman's R&R recommended awarding no damages because the plaintiff's submissions were 'wholly inadequate to support her damages claims.' She also recommended vacating the default judgment on negligence, fraud, deceptive-trade, and conversion claims as inadequately pleaded, with leave to replead conversion only. District Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted the unobjected R&R in its entirety. The inquest shows Freeman's exacting approach to default-judgment damages proof. Grounding quote: 'After reviewing Magistrate Judge Freeman's thorough and thoughtful R & R, to which no objections were filed, this Court concludes that there is no clear error and, accordingly, adopts the R & R in its entirety ... ORDERED that no damages are awarded to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' breach of contract.'

“For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R & R in its entirety. In accordance with the R & R, the jury shall be given an adverse inference instruction. Plaintiffs shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined by Judge Freeman.”

“This Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The City Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety.”

“The State Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART, consistent with this opinion.”

“The State Defendants' motion to sever is DENIED as moot.”

“The State Defendants' motion to transfer to the Western District of New York is GRANTED.”

“Keitt's motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice to renew in the Western District of New York.”

“ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 32) of defendant James Iniguez to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Daniel J. O'Callaghan is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that on motion of the Court the complaint as to defendant Adam Sifre is dismissed.”

“ORDERED that the Order of Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman dated October 3, 2011 ... is adopted in its entirety, and the motion of Michael Mantell ... for reconsideration of the October 3 Order is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that ... Mantell is directed to pay to defendants ... $18,562.50 representing attorneys fees and $85.22 of costs incurred by defendants.”