University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Handschu v. Special Services Division PN-NY-0007
Docket / Court 1:71-cv-02203-CSH-SCS ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Policing
Speech and Religious Freedom
Case Summary
On May 18, 1971, residents of New York City filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued an intelligence division within the New York Police Department, the Special Services Division (SSD), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for ... read more >
On May 18, 1971, residents of New York City filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued an intelligence division within the New York Police Department, the Special Services Division (SSD), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and private counsel sought class certification to represent all New York City residents who objected to ideas and beliefs "currently dominant in the United States" and who were subject to unlawful surveillance and intelligence gathering by SSD. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that, for at least six years, SSD had engaged in overt and covert physical surveillance, covert electronic surveillance, infiltration, undercover intelligence gathering, and maintenance of files on the plaintiffs and the class they represented.

The NPYD moved to dismiss the complaint. The District Court (Judge Edward Weinfeld) denied that motion. Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 349 F. Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) ("Handschu I"). Settlement negotiations followed.

Oversight of the case was transferred from Judge Weinfeld to Senior United States District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. On May 24, 1979, Judge Haight certified the plaintiff class. Thereafter class counsel and the Corporation Counsel for the NYPD negotiated a proposed settlement of the class action which was approved by the District Court on May 14, 1985, Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 605 F. Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("Handschu II"), and affirmed by the Second Circuit. Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 787 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Handschu III"). The Settlement Agreement called for the NYPD to adopt guidelines governing future police conduct in the areas of videotaping surveillance, and intelligence-gathering activities. ("Original Handschu Guidelines").

We don't have the docket for the fifteen years following approval of the settlement; the digitized docket skips from item 168 (in 1986) to 265 (in 2002). So we don't know what happened in this period. Responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, the NYPD on Sept. 25, 2002, sought a court modification of the Original Handschu Guidelines to more effectively combat terrorism. Over plaintiffs' objection, the District Court granted the NYPD's motion to modify the original Handschu Guidelines. Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 273 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("Handschu IV"). The District Court's order required that the NYPD revise its patrol guidelines in accordance with guidelines issued by the FBI after 9/11. The "Patrol Guidelines" specified how NYPD was to conduct investigations involving political activity.

Following the arrest and interrogation of individuals protesting President Bush's plan for Iraq in February and March of 2003, plaintiffs sought modification of the District Court's order and Judgment. The District Court issued a Second Revised Order and Judgment which formally incorporated the "Patrol Guidelines" and Modified Handschu Guidelines. Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 288 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("Handschu V").

On September 10, 2004, the NPYD issued and distributed a new "Order 47" to all commanders for implementation. Order 47 revised the Patrol Guidelines regarding the use of photographic and video equipment by officers at political demonstrations. The plaintiff class moved to enjoin enforcement of Order 47. Prior to ruling on the motion, the District Court requested that the parties file position statements about a "Note" appearing on page 2 of Order 47 Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 2006 WL 1716919 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2006) ("Handschu VI").

On February 15, 2007, the District Court (Judge Haight), ruled that the videotaping or photographing by the NYPD of any individual engaged in political activity must be conducted in accordance with the Modified Handschu Guidelines. The Court ruled that to the extent that Order 47 was inconsistent with the Modified Handschu Guidelines, the NYPD would be enjoined from implementing it.

On April 13, 2007, the NPYD issued and distributed a new "Order 22" to all commanders for implementation. Order 22 revoked Order 47 and put in place new guidelines for the use of video/photographic equipment by operational personnel at demonstrations.

Subsequently, in a June 2007 order ("Handschu VIII"), the Court granted Defendants' motion for reconsideration of its February 2007 order ("Handschu VII"), vacating it. The Court explained it had "erred in holding [in Handschu VII] that incorporation of each and every NYPD Guideline into the consent decree was essential to keeping the consent decree above the constitutional floor." 2007 WL 1711775, at *10. Consequentially, it held that "police conduct must violate a class member's constitutional rights in order to sustain a motion by Class Counsel to hold the NYPD in contempt." Id. And such a motion will be granted only if Class Counsel are able "to demonstrate that the NYPD, in the course of photographing or videotaping public gatherings and their participants, systematically and repeatedly disregarded the NYPD Guidelines, to a degree sufficient to show a NYPD policy to act in such a fashion." Id. at *20.

On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff class filed a motion requiring the defendants to give the plaintiff class council advance notice of any efforts to alter or revoke Order 22. They asked the court to declare the plaintiff class to be the prevailing party on its motion for injunctive relief, and they asked the court for permission to file a request for attorneys' fees.

The Court acted favorably upon the class's motion ("Handschu X"). It held that the class, though not successful on all its claims, was nevertheless the prevailing party because it had "achieved (1) victory on a significant claim which (2) brought about a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties and (3) was which was [sic] judicially sanctioned." 679 F. Supp. 2d 488, 497-98. The "victory" referred to by the Court was the recognition-in Handschu VIII-of both "Class Counsel's ability to inquire into and challenge NYPD policies and the NYPD's obligation to respond to such inquiries and challenges, rather than simply ignoring them." Id. at 496.

The Court held that a full award of attorneys' fees would be inappropriate, however, deciding instead that fees should only be awarded for the claims the class succeeded on. (In a follow-up July 2010 order, the court awarded fees of roughly $180,000.) Finally, the Court ordered that the NYPD was required to provide Class Counsel at least ten days' notice with respect to any "new or revised order, directive or policy which alters, modifies or has any effect upon the sort of police conduct and activity which forms the subject matter of this action." Id. at 504.

In March 2011, the parties entered into a stipulation, later approved by the Court, in which they asked that the Court issue an order vacating its findings that the plaintiff class was the prevailing party and that Defendants' counsel had engaged in sanctionable conduct. For the class's cooperation, Defendants agreed to pay the attorney's fees set out in the Court's August 2010 order, rather than pursuing an appeal. The Court, in turn, issued an order in accordance with the parties' request.

The Court issued a opinion in November 2012 clarifying the scope of "police conduct" affected by the injunction granted in Handschu X. Concurring with Defendants' interpretation, it held that the injunction governed only those "NYPD orders and practices which authorize or regulate police use of photographs and videotapes in the surveillance of class members." 905 F. Supp. 2d 555, 559.

Perceiving violations of the Handschu Guidelines in the NYPD's monitoring of Muslims in the New York area, the class moved for equitable relief in February 2013, requesting an injunction and the appointment of a monitor. The Court determined the class's contentions included "issues worthy of further litigation which entitle[d] Class Counsel to further discovery in aid of their claims," and it directed the parties to confer regarding the scope of necessary discovery. 2014 WL 407103, at *4. On March 17, 2014, the parties expressed to the court their intent to enter into settlement talks.

On January 7, 2016, the parties entered an agreement. The agreement included a modification to the Hanschu guidelines. The modified guidelines called for reviews of ongoing investigations; established the Handschu Committee to oversee investigations and set out the requirements for the appointment of a Civilian Representative; required that choices in investigation techniques take into account the effect on religious and political activities of individuals, including those not the target of investigation; and required that undercover investigations be used only when there was no less intrusive means to acquire the sought after information. They also dictated that investigations respect the constitutional right to be free of investigation in which race, religion, or ethnicity is a substantial or motivating factor. The stipulation included a proposal to publish a notice to class members in four different newspapers.

On February 10, 2016, the court approved the form and content of the notice of the hearing to the class members about the proposed settlement. The court continued to closely monitor the advertisement and notification to class, with a formal fairness hearing held on April 19, 2016.

On August 23, 2016, the New York City Department of Investigation, Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD issued a 36-page report, titled "An investigation of NYPD's Compliance with Rules Governing Investigation of Political Activity." The report described a new and systemic failure of the part of the NYPD to comply with the particular Guidelines.

On October 28th, 2016, the district court ruled on the proposed settlement agreement between the plaintiff class and City of New York regarding issues affecting the Muslim community. The court disapproved the proposed settlement, without prejudice to submission after the parties and counsel have had an opportunity to consider the ruling.

The court first concluded that it could consider the August 23 NYC Dept. of Investigation Report's conclusions as one of the circumstances relevant to the proposed settlement. The court also found that the settlement would not be "fair and reasonable" (the requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for court ratification of a class action settlement), specifically considering whether it was fair to both the NYPD and the Muslim community. The most controversial provision of the settlement was that the Mayor can eliminate the position of Civilian Representative after five years, without judicial review or approval. The court concluded that the proposed role and power of the Civilian Representative would not furnish sufficient protection form potential violation of constitutional rights of those law-abiding Muslims and believers in Islam who live, move and have their being in the city. The court laid out several points for parties to consider to make the proposed settlement fair and reasonable.

On March 13, 2017, Judge Haight approved a revised settlement agreement proposed by the parties. The revised agreement made a number of changes in response to the Judge's concerns about the power of the Civilian Representative. Most notably, it stipulated that the Mayor could no longer eliminate the position of Civilian Representative after five years without judicial review. Instead, the Mayor must apply to the court for an amendment to the Handschu Guidelines. The revised agreement also gave more power and responsibilities to the Civilian Representative, including direct access to the Police Commissioner and to the Judge overseeing the case. Judge Haight held that these changes amounted to "a material, effective, and reasonable restructuring of the position of Civilian Representative on the Handschu Committee."

On March 27, 2017, Judge Haight issued an order endorsing the specifics of the Settlement Agreement, requiring defendant to follow the amended Handschu Guidelines and to pay $361,730.26 in attorney's fees.

The case remains open.

Kristen Sagar - 11/12/2008
Priyah Kaul - 10/14/2014
Sihang Zhang - 11/08/2016
Gabriela Hybel - 04/03/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Preliminary relief granted
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Required disclosure
Training
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Racial profiling
Record-keeping
Search policies
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Watchlist
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) New York Police Department [NYPD]
Plaintiff Description Citizens subjected to surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities by the NYPD.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1985 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing NS-NY-0005 : Raza v. City of New York (E.D.N.Y.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  New York City to Pay Up to $75 Million Over Dismissed Summonses
New York Times
Date: Jan. 23, 2017
By: Benjamin Weiser (New York Times)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Bravo v. Board of Commissioners of Dona Ana County
http://www.bazelon.org/
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:71-cv-02203-CSH-SCS (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint - Class Action
PN-NY-0007-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/18/1971
Opinion (349 F.Supp. 766) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/24/1972
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (605 F.Supp. 1384) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/07/1985
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (1985 WL 1366) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0035.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/16/1985
Memorandum Opinion and Order (1985 WL 3538) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0036.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/31/1985
Reported Appellate Opinion (787 F.2d 828)
PN-NY-0007-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/09/1986
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (1989 WL 54153) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0027.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/16/1989
Memorandum Opinion and Order (1989 WL 82397) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0028.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/02/1989
Memorandum Opinion and Order (737 F.Supp. 1289) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/18/1989
Source: Google Scholar
Order (838 F.Supp. 81) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/24/1989
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (131 F.R.D. 50) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/22/1990
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order (2002 WL 31619035) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0029.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/19/2002
Memorandum and Order (2003 WL 151974) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0032.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/22/2003
Memorandum Opinion and Order (273 F.Supp.2d 327) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/11/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (288 F.Supp.2d 404) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/12/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order (288 F.Supp.2d 410) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/21/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order (2003 WL 22019918 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5648) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0030.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/07/2003
Revised Order and Judgment (2003 WL 21961367) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/07/2003
Memorandum Opinion (288 F.Supp.2d 411) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/06/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order (2003 WL 22245590) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0033.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/29/2003
Interim Order
PN-NY-0007-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/10/2004
Notice of Motion for Injunctive Relief
PN-NY-0007-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/01/2005
Memorandum and Order (2006 WL 1716919 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 41940) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0034.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/21/2006
Memorandum Opinion and Order (475 F.Supp.2d 331) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0014.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/15/2007
Source: Google Scholar
Interim Order
PN-NY-0007-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2007
Memorandum and Order (2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6790) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0038.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/23/2007
Source: LexisNexis
Memorandum Opinion and Order (2007 WL 1711775 / 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 43176) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0037.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/13/2007
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Denying Motions for Relief and Reconsideration] [ECF# 368] (2008 WL 515695) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 02/27/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Notice of Motion
PN-NY-0007-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/07/2008
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees] [ECF# 380] (679 F.Supp.2d 488) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0019.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/19/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Concerning Attorneys' Fees] [ECF# 390] (727 F.Supp.2d 239) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0020.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/28/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [USCA Granting Defendants' Motion for Limited Remand] [Ct. of App. ECF# 394]
PN-NY-0007-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/07/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order [ECF# 395] (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/14/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Mandate [USCA Dismissing Appeal] [Ct. of App. ECF# 396]
PN-NY-0007-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/08/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Vacating Findings] [ECF# 401] (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/18/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Order of Injunction] [ECF# 407] (905 F.Supp.2d 555) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0025.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order [Concerning Discovery Procedures] [ECF# 427] (2014 WL 407103) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0026.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/30/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 431] (2016 WL 324490) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0039.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/27/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 434] (2016 WL 403441) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0040.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/29/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [regarding proposed settlement agreement] [ECF# 465] (219 F.Supp.3d 388) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0041.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/28/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ruling and Order on Proposed Revised Settlement Agreement [ECF# 471] (2017 WL 1293005) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-7500.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation of Settlement and Order [ECF# 472]
PN-NY-0007-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement [ECF# 473]
PN-NY-0007-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Haight, Charles Sherman Jr. (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0016 | PN-NY-0007-0017 | PN-NY-0007-0019 | PN-NY-0007-0020 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0024 | PN-NY-0007-0025 | PN-NY-0007-0026 | PN-NY-0007-0027 | PN-NY-0007-0028 | PN-NY-0007-0029 | PN-NY-0007-0030 | PN-NY-0007-0031 | PN-NY-0007-0032 | PN-NY-0007-0033 | PN-NY-0007-0034 | PN-NY-0007-0035 | PN-NY-0007-0036 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0038 | PN-NY-0007-0039 | PN-NY-0007-0040 | PN-NY-0007-0041 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-7500 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Hall, Peter W. (Second Circuit)
PN-NY-0007-0021 | PN-NY-0007-0023
Van Graafeiland, Ellsworth Alfred (Second Circuit)
PN-NY-0007-0006
Weinfeld, Edward (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007-0012
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bender, William J. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0042
Burns, Haywood (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0042
Chevigny, Paul (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0002 | PN-NY-0007-0003 | PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0012 | PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0042 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0002 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0016 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044
Eisenstein, Jethro M. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0002 | PN-NY-0007-0003 | PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0012 | PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0038 | PN-NY-0007-0042 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Kaufman, Mary M. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0042
Moore, Jonathan C. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Siegel, Franklin (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0002 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0038 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Stolar, Martin R. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0002 | PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0012 | PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0038 | PN-NY-0007-0042 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bergdall, Thomas (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0016
Bernikow, Leonard (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0012
Cahill, Peter J. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0016
Crotty, Paul Austin (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0037
Donoghue, Gail (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0009 | PN-NY-0007-0010 | PN-NY-0007-0011 | PN-NY-0007-0014 | PN-NY-0007-0015 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0038 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Farrell, Peter Girard (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0022 | PN-NY-0007-0037 | PN-NY-0007-0043 | PN-NY-0007-0044 | PN-NY-0007-9000
Milberg, Frances (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0012
Park, Tai (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Rankin, J. Lee (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0012
Schwarz, Frederick A.O. Jr. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Sonnenshein, Larry A. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0006
Turbow, Daniel (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Zimroth, Peter L. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0016
Other Lawyers Abt, John (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Boyle, Robert (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Brown, Wendy R. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Fink, Elizabeth (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Gibbs, Joan (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Krinsky, Michael (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Moore, Stephanie Y. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Paganuzzi, O. Stephen (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Perlin, Marshall (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Popper, Martin (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Rabinowitz, Victor (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013 | PN-NY-0007-0042
Ratner, Michael (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Ratner, Margaret (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008
Ratner, Marjorie (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0006
Robbins, Dana (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0006
Schwartz, Jeffrey (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013
Simmons, Esmeralda (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0007 | PN-NY-0007-0008 | PN-NY-0007-0010
Simon, Anne E. (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0006
St. Clair, Betty (New York)
PN-NY-0007-0013

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -