Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 30, 2022

Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:16-cv-08882
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, Judge Woods granted summary-judgment motions, closed the case, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Oludotun Akinde and New York City Health and Hospital Corporation; the defendants prevailed, and Akinde was denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs.

What happened

Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation ended with judgment for the defendants. The judgment does not describe the underlying dispute or claims.

The court said its decision was based on a memorandum opinion and order dated March 29, 2022, which is not included in the provided text. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Judge Gregory Woods’s court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and closed the case. The court also denied Oludotun Akinde permission to appeal without paying the filing costs.

The detailed version

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

Case
Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation · No. 1:16-cv-08882
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 30, 2022

Background

The provided document is a judgment in Oludotun Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation. It does not state the facts, claims, or legal arguments underlying the case. The judgment refers to a memorandum opinion and order dated March 29, 2022, but that document is not included here.

Rulings

The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision resolving claims without a trial when the governing legal standard is met. The judgment states that the case is closed.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning Akinde could not appeal without paying the required filing costs under that provision.

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.