From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 8, 2021
19 CIVIL 8900 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021)

Opinion

19 CIVIL 8900 (PMH)

02-08-2021

ANTHONY J. ALLEGRINO II, Plaintiff, v. RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C., et al., Defendants.


JUDGMENT

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2021, Plaintiff's claims alleged against the Cohen Defendants are dismissed. Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are GRANTED. While "[d]istrict courts should frequently provide leave to amend before dismissing a pro se complaint... leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgt. Corp., 541 F. App'x 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Here, as any amendment would be futile, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has already amended his pleading twice, the claims alleged in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are dismissed against Defendants with prejudice as any amendment would be futile; accordingly, this case is closed. Dated: New York, New York

February 8, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK

Clerk of Court

BY: /s/ _________

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 8, 2021
19 CIVIL 8900 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021)
Case details for

Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY J. ALLEGRINO II, Plaintiff, v. RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 8, 2021

Citations

19 CIVIL 8900 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021)