Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David SOLOMON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al., Defendants–Respondents, Froebel Chungata, etc., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2022, which granted the motion of defendants The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, Amazon.com, Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Carmen Nicolaou, individually and as lawyer employed by The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, and Jay Warren, individually (WFM/Chartwell defendants) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 26, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied as moot the following nine motions brought by plaintiff: a motion to strike defendants’ reply on their motion to dismiss, two motions to find defendants guilty of perjury, a motion to deny defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions, a motion to add a case citation to the prior motion to strike, a motion to transfer the case to the Appellate Division, a motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126, a motion to compel defendants to admit transfer to the Appellate Division, and a motion to reverse plaintiff's suspension from the practice of law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly dismissed the complaint as against the WFM/Chartwell defendants. Plaintiff purports to assert a claim under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 for deprivation of his constitutional rights to cross-examine the underlying anonymous complainants in a discrimination proceeding he initiated with the New York State Division of Human Rights and to “a judgment that is not based entirely on the[ir] hearsay accusations.” This claim must fail because plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that any such rights (to the extent they exist) were violated here, that the WFM/Chartwell defendants acted under color of state law, or the existence of a conspiracy involving these defendants.
Having dismissed the complaint as against the WFM/Chartwell defendants, the motion court properly denied plaintiff's various motions aimed at those defendants as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3694-, 3695
Decided: February 18, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)