Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 17, 2020

Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:17-cv-03408
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fortunato K. Febus v. Sorrell Feldman, Judge Briccetti granted summary judgment to Feldman and closed the case.

Who this affects

Fortunato K. Febus’s case was resolved in favor of Sorrell Feldman, M.D.; the judgment also denied Febus fee-free status for an appeal and closed the case.

What happened

In Fortunato K. Febus v. Sorrell Feldman, the court entered judgment for defendant Sorrell Feldman, M.D. The judgment says this result followed the reasons in an opinion and order dated August 17, 2020.

The court granted Feldman’s motion for summary judgment. The judgment does not state the court’s reasoning or identify the claims in the provided text.

Judge Vincent Briccetti’s court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The case was closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Febus v. CCS Correct Care Solutions · No. 7:17-cv-03408
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Aug. 17, 2020

Background

The provided judgment identifies Fortunato K. Febus as the plaintiff and Sorrell Feldman, M.D. as the defendant. It refers to the court’s separate opinion and order dated August 17, 2020, but that opinion is not included in the provided text. The judgment therefore does not state the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.

Ruling

The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision resolving a case without a trial when the court determines that the applicable legal standard is satisfied; the provided judgment does not explain why the standard was satisfied here.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.