Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Adrian v. Yorktown, No. 09-5062

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on September 13, 2010 11:28 AM

In Adrian v. Yorktown, No. 09-5062, an action alleging that defendant-town, through its town supervisor and other policy-making officials, maintained an official policy under which the plaintiffs were denied the right to develop their property, and subsequently retaliated against for their exercise of their First Amendment rights, the district court's order denying post-verdict interest is vacated where, if a mandate reinstating a jury verdict does not order entry of a judgment in a specific dollar amount, and also makes no mention of interest, the district court retains the power to award post-verdict interest on remand.

As the court wrote:  "Plaintiffs-appellants Joseph and Elaine Adrian and Adrian Family Partners I, L.P. sued 5 the Town of Yorktown (the "Town") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law, alleging that the Town, through its Town Supervisor, Linda Cooper, and other policy-making officials, maintained an official policy under which the plaintiffs were denied the right to develop their property, and subsequently retaliated against for their exercise of their First Amendment rights."

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options