Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Nikita KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as reflected abo

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Nikita Kennedy, pro se, appeals from the September 23, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.) granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Hartford Insurance Company. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo, "resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold such an award only if the record reveals no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2).

Having reviewed Kennedy's arguments on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. We have considered all of Kennedy's arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KENNEDY v. HARTFORD INS. CO
(Dec 3, 2010)