LINARDOS v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUTTONTOWN, CV 14-1984. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20150918k30
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER LEONARD D. WEXLER , District Judge . Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983, a claim of conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985, and violations of his rights under the New York State Constitution, in connection with appearance tickets he received in January 2013 for removing trees at his home without a permit. Plaintiff asserts that the
Summary: ORDER LEONARD D. WEXLER , District Judge . Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983, a claim of conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985, and violations of his rights under the New York State Constitution, in connection with appearance tickets he received in January 2013 for removing trees at his home without a permit. Plaintiff asserts that the a..
More
ORDER
LEONARD D. WEXLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, a claim of conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and violations of his rights under the New York State Constitution, in connection with appearance tickets he received in January 2013 for removing trees at his home without a permit. Plaintiff asserts that the appearance tickets were issued to him and not to others because of his public disagreement with Defendants, including the Muttontown Mayor, over the creation of the Muttontown Police Department and other issues. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Having reviewed the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether Defendants issued the appearance tickets to Plaintiff because of his public statements and participation in acts that disagreed with the Defendants. Such an issue of fact precludes the entry of summary judgment at this time. The parties may renew their arguments at the time of trial.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Counsel are advised that jury selection is scheduled for June 1, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
