Rosemary A. Millus v. Ronald J. D'angelo, 224 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Rosemary A. Millus v. Ronald J. D'angelo, 224 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bravo v. Rodriguez (nyed, 2020-08-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bravo v. Rodriguez (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · confidence medium
Defendant admits these facts by failing to oppose them, see Millus, 224 F.3d at 138, and admitted at his deposition that he paid employees.
discussed Cited "see" That's What She Said, Inc. v. Gutter Games, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact due to plaintiff’s failure to deny portions of defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement); Gadsden v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 430, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (rejecting plaintiff’s untimely Rule 56.1 Statement and deeming facts in defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement admitted); Wolde-Maskel v. Argus Cmty., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 10112 (LMM), 2001 WL 883648 , at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. MTB AMG INC.
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D'Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Gu- bitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (accepting as true defendant's uncontested assertions in reversing denial of summary judg- ment).
cited Cited "see" Malloy v. Tadmor
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D'Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000).
cited Cited "see" CRESPO v. MERCK & CO., INC.
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000).
cited Cited "see" Jones v. Yazzo
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000).
cited Cited "see" Kallinikos v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Covey v. Simonton (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d at 138.
discussed Cited "see" Sawyer v. Wight
E.D.N.Y · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000); see also Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 n. 1 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing District Court’s denial of summary judgment and accepting defendant’s uncontested assertions).
discussed Cited "see" Dittmer v. County of Suffolk
E.D.N.Y · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000); see also Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 n. 1 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing District Court’s denial of summary judgment and accepting defendant’s uncontested assertions).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Caesar v. Village of Mineola
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
P. 56(e)); see also Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (noting district court properly “granted summary judgment in favor of defendants following plaintiff’s failure to deny, in accordance with Rule 56.1 of the court’s local rules,” various allegations of defendants).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." BMaddox Enterprises LLC v. Milad Oskouie, Osko M Ltd., and Platinum Avenue Holdings Pty, Ltd.
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming grant of summary judgment on the basis of uncontested assertions in the moving party's Local Rule 56.1 statement) (per curiam); Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (accepting as true facts contained in defendants’ statement of material facts because plaintiff failed to file a response); Arline v. Potter, 404 F. Supp. 2d 521, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants following plaintiffs’ failure to deny defendants’ allegations in accordance with Local Rule 56.1).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Torres v. LaLota
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2000) (elections day operations coordinator); Hering v. Hill, 814 F. Supp. 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (deputy commissioner); Mirabella v. Bd. of Elections of City of New York, 507 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (election inspectors).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Skates v. Incorporated Village of Freeport
E.D.N.Y · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Where the nonmoving party fails to “specifically controvertí ]” the facts in the moving party’s Local Rule 56.1 statement, the facts contained in the moving party’s Local Rule 56.1 statement “will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion ....” Id. at 56 .1(c); see also Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment where the plaintiff failed “to deny, in accordance with Rule 56.1 of the court’s local rules, defendants’ allegations”); Young v. Nassau Univ.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lisa Peterson v. James Dean (2×)
6th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 745-47 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (holding that the plaintiffs’ position as elections day operations coordinator, employed by the city board of elections, was one of political patronage and thus was not entitled to First Amendment protection).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. Savory
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
R.Civ.P. 56; Local Civil Rule 56; see also Jessamy v. City of New Rochelle, 292 F.Supp.2d 498, 504 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citing, inter alia, Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000)); Pooler v. Hempstead Police Dep't, 897 F.Supp.2d 12 , 17 n. 7 (E.D.N.Y.2012).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ballard v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Courts in this circuit have not hesitated to deem admitted the facts in a movant’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement that have not been controverted by a Local Rule 56.1 statement from the non-moving party.” Gadsden v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ams., Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 430, 438 (S.D.N.Y.2002) *203 (collecting cases); see also Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000) (finding summary judgment “appropriate” in light of non-moving party’s failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." T.Y. Ex Rel. T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000).
cited Cited "see, e.g." T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Liles v. New York City Department of Education (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
A non-moving party’s failure to adhere to Local Rule 56.1(b) can prove fatal because “[c]ourts in this circuit have not hesitated to deem admitted the facts in a movant’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement that have not been controverted by a Local Rule 56.1 statement from the non-moving party.” Gadsden v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 430, 438 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (collecting cases); see also Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000) (summary judgment “appropriate” in light of non-moving party’s failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)); Dunkin’ Donuts Inc., …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." New York State Teamsters Conference Pension And Retirement Fund v. Express Services, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 471 (2d Cir.2002); see also 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.10[5] (3d ed.2005) (discussing the practice generally), and have affirmed summary judgment rulings that enforce such rules, see, e.g., Millus v. D'Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Express Services, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 471 (2d Cir.2002); see also 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.10[5] (3d ed.2005) (discussing the practice generally), and have affirmed summary judgment rulings that enforce such rules, see, e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jessamy v. City of New Rochelle, New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
PTE Ltd., 262 F.Supp.2d 134, 139 (S.D.N.Y.2003); see also Millus v. D'Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000) (concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be tried following plaintiffs failure to deny defendants’ allegations in Rule 56.1 statement).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gadsden v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Millus v. D’Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir.2000); Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 n. 1 (2d Cir.1998); Hi Pockets, Inc. v. Music Conservatory of Westchester, Inc., 192 F.Supp.2d 143, 147 (S.D.N.Y.2002); John Street Leasehold, LLC v. Capital Mgmt.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc. (2×)
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Millus v. D'Angelo, 224 F.3d 137 , 138 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30 , 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (accepting as true defendant's uncontested assertions in reversing denial of summary judgment). 25 We nonetheless reject RCI's argument.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosemary A. Millus
v.
Ronald J. D'angelo, Commissioner, Frederick M. Umane, Secretary, Weyman A. Carey, Commissioner, Douglas A. Kellner, Commissioner, Vincent J. Velella, Commissioner, Stephen Weiner, Commissioner, Michael Cohen, Commissioner, and New York City Board of Elections
2000.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sep 12, 2000.
224 F.3d 137
Published

224 F.3d 137 (2nd Cir. 2000)

ROSEMARY A. MILLUS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RONALD J. D'ANGELO, Commissioner, FREDERICK M. UMANE, Secretary, WEYMAN A. CAREY, Commissioner, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, Commissioner, VINCENT J. VELELLA, Commissioner, STEPHEN WEINER, Commissioner, MICHAEL COHEN, Commissioner, and NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-7001
August Term, 2000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Argued: September 1, 2000
Decided: September 12, 2000

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Carol Bagley Amon, Judge, dismissing a First Amendment claim challenging dismissal of plaintiff from the position of Elections Day Operations Coordinator because of her continued loyalty to a defeated party official in preference to the elected official.

Affirmed.

ALBERT J. MILLUS, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

MARGARET G. KING, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, New York (Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Edward F.X. Hart, New York, New York, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, JACOBS, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

[*~137]1

Plaintiff Rosemary A. Millus appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Carol Bagley Amon, Judge, dismissing her complaint alleging that defendants New York City Board of Elections ("Board of Elections") and certain of its Commissioners violated her rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution by dismissing her as Elections Day Operations Coordinator because of her persistent loyalty to a candidate defeated in her party's election for County Chairman, in preference to the elected party official. On appeal, Millus contends principally that the district court erred in concluding that her operating position was one of political patronage and hence, under Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 517-18 (1980), was not entitled to First Amendment protection. She also contends that there were material questions of fact to be tried. Finding no merit in Millus's contentions, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Amon's Memorandum and Order dated November 24, 1999.

2

"[P]olitical affiliation is an appropriate [job] requirement where there is a rational connection between shared ideology and job performance," Bavaro v. Pataki, 130 F.3d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1120 (1998), and the district court's determination that Millus's position as Elections Day Operations Coordinator was one of political patronage was supported by most of the factors set forth in Vezzetti v. Pellegrini, 22 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir. 1994). These principles, adopted in the context of a plaintiff's affiliation with one political party rather than another, are applicable as well to loyalties to competing factions within a given party. Accord Green v. Henley, 924 F.2d 185, 187 (10th Cir. 1991); Williams v. City of River Rouge, 909 F.2d 151, 153 n.4 (6th Cir. 1990). We see no error in the district court's analysis of Millus's position.

3

Nor was there a genuine issue to be tried as to the reason for Millus's termination or her disloyalty to the then-current party leaders. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants following Millus's failure to deny, in accordance with Rule 56.1 of the court's local rules, defendants' allegations that Millus supported a certain candidate in her party's election for the position of County Chairman; that Millus's candidate was defeated; that Millus continued to support her candidate after his opponent was elected; and that she was dismissed because in continuing, following the election, to support her own candidate against the elected candidate, Millus was not loyal to her party. Summary judgment was appropriate.

[*~138]4

We have considered all of Millus's contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.