Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
KRINSKY v. ABRAMS, 305 Fed.Appx. 784 (2nd Cir. 2009)
Richard M. KRINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra ABRAMS, SheilaHanley, Joyce Coppin, Bd. of Educ. of the City of NewYork, John Doe, Jane Doe, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 305 F. App'x 784 (2d Cir. 2009)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-01-08
- Topic
- general
KRINSKY v. ABRAMS, 305 Fed.Appx. 784 (2nd Cir. 2009) Richard M. KRINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra ABRAMS, SheilaHanley, Joyce Coppin, Board of Education of the City of NewYork, John Doe, Jane Doe, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-2795-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed KRINSKY v. ABRAMS, 305 Fed.Appx. 784 (2nd Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
KRINSKY v. ABRAMS,305 Fed.Appx. 784(2nd Cir. 2009)
Richard M. KRINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra ABRAMS, Sheila
Hanley, Joyce Coppin, Board of Education of the City of New
York, John Doe, Jane Doe, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-2795-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 8, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.).Page 785ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREEDthat the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby isAFFIRMED.
Richard Krinsky, Brooklyn, NY, pro se Appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Appellees.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Appellees.
Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Richard Krinsky appeals from a judgment entered May 30, 2007, that (1) denied his motion for summary judgment, and (2) granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Krinsky claimed defendants discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and analogous state and city laws. He also asserted state law claims of harassment, defamation, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons articulated in its thorough memorandum and order of May 25, 2007, 2007 WL 1541369. We have considered each of Krinsky's claims of error in the decision and found that they lack merit.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩