text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, S.D. New York
March 30, 2015
JODY RUCKS, Plaintiff,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants
Page 139
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 140
For Jody Rucks, Plaintiff: Gerald M. Cohen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cohen & Fitch LLP, New York, NY; Katherine Elizabeth Smith, The Law Office of Katherine E. Smith, New York, NY.
Page 141
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jody Rucks[1] brought this action in May 2012 against the City of New York and New York City Police Department (" NYPD" ) officers Anthony Bruno, Michael O'Connor, and Michael Percy (collectively, the " Defendant Officers" ) in their individual and official capacities. In it, Plaintiff raised claims of false arrest, excessive force, denial of fair trial, and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for assault and battery under New York state law, stemming from his June 18, 2011 arrest and subsequent events. On July 14, 2014, following a one-week trial, a jury found for Plaintiff on his claims of false arrest and denial of fair trial, and for Defendants on the remaining claims. Both parties have filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court denies Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and grants Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to his assault and battery claims and a new trial for damages.
A. The Pretrial Procedural History
Plaintiff Jody Rucks filed his Complaint against the City of New York and three individual NYPD officers -- Officers Bruno and Percy, and Sergeant O'Connor -- on May 29, 2012. (Dkt. #1). In it, he brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, excessive force, denial of fair trial, and malicious prosecution, and under New York state law for assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. ( Id. ). On June 24, 2013, the case was reassigned to the undersigned from United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (Dkt. #18). On June 26, 2013, the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the City of New York for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, as well as claims for municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); in addition, Plaintiff dismissed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against all parties. (Dkt. #20). Trial commenced on July 8, 2014. (Tr. 1).
B. The Evidence at Trial
1. Plaintiff's Evening and Arrival at the West 4th Street Station
Plaintiff spent the evening of June 17, 2011, at an art gallery event on West 27th Street in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. (Tr. 579-80). Plaintiff consumed one plastic cup of wine and departed at, by his estimate, roughly 2:30 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 18. ( Id. at 582-83). Witness Kasey Schweickert, who hosted the event, confirmed Plaintiff's presence and his consumption of roughly
Page 142
one cup of wine, though she placed his departure at roughly 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. ( Id. at 569-71). Plaintiff boarded the southbound E train at the West 23rd Street station, intending to transfer at the Canal Street station to the A or C train, and then take one of those trains to the Nostrand Avenue stop in Brooklyn, near where he lived. ( Id. at 584). When he arrived at Canal Street, however, he discovered that, due to construction, he would have to return uptown to the West 4th Street station, where he could then transfer to the downtown A or C train. ( Id. at 584-85). Accordingly, he boarded the E train headed north toward the West 4th Street station. ( Id. at 105-06, 585).
Defendants Bruno, O'Connor, and Percy, meanwhile, were patrolling the West 4th Street station along with Officer Joel Estevez, who was not named as a defendant. (Tr. 214). The officers, who were wearing plainclothes, were assigned to the location to focus on " quality-of-life" crimes. ( Id. at 95-99, 212). Their shift began at 3:00 a.m. ( Id. at 95). Plaintiff's northbound E train arrived at the station at roughly 3:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. ( Id. at 99, 167). It is at this point in the narrative that Plaintiff's testimony began to diverge significantly from that of each of the Officer Defendants.
2. Plaintiff's Exit from the Northbound E Train at West 4th Street
The West 4th Street station is divided into multiple levels. The uppermost level, where the events in question took place, is split into two platforms that offer access to four tracks serving the uptown and downtown A, C, and E trains. The southbound trains are accessible by the southbound platform and the northbound trains are accessible by the northbound platform. Express trains (the A) run on the two tracks located between the two platforms, while local trains (the C and Plaintiff's E train) run on tracks located to the outside of their respective platforms. Below this level, accessible by a number of stairways, is a mezzanine by which one can pass under the A, C, and E trains to move between the uptown and downtown platforms, as well as access the B, D, F, and M trains located on the lowest level. (Tr. 121, 222-23).
At the time that Plaintiff's E train arrived at the West 4th Street station on the northbound local track (the furthest track from the southbound platform), O'Connor, Bruno, and Estevez were on the northbound platform, while Percy was on the southbound platform. (Tr. 449, 545). O'Connor was located toward the northern end of the northbound platform, very near to where Plaintiff arrived on the E train. ( Id. at 545-46). O'Connor testified[3] that he observed Plaintiff lying completely horizontally across several subway seats, apparently sleeping. ( Id. at 546). O'Connor testified that he nudged Plaintiff, identified himself as a police officer, and asked Plaintiff to step outside the train, which he did. ( Id. at 547). O'Connor recalled other passengers on the train, but could not say how many. ( Id. at 547-48).
Bruno at this time was also on the northbound platform, further north than O'Connor. (Tr. 282). He testified that he saw O'Connor speak to the conductor and then step into a subway car, at which point he began walking briskly or jogging toward that car in time to observe Plaintiff standing and rubbing his eyes as though he had just awakened. ( Id. at 282-86). He did not personally see Plaintiff lying down, but O'Connor told Bruno that he had seen Plaintiff lying down on the subway seats. ( Id. at 286-97).
Page 143
Percy at this time was on the southbound platform. (Tr. 121). He testified that across the express tracks and the northbound platform he was partially able to see Plaintiff -- from the mid-torso down -- lying across several subway seats. ( Id. at 122-23). He either did not see or did not focus on any other passengers in the subway car. ( Id. at 124-25). Percy testified, after being confronted with some arguably inconsistent prior statements of his, that his attention was taken away at the moment that O'Connor and Bruno entered the subway car; although he did not see O'Connor and Bruno wake Plaintiff up, he assumed they did so. ( Id. at 139-45, 220). As Plaintiff and the two officers emerged from the subway car, O'Connor waved Percy over. ( Id. at 220-21). In response, Percy descended the stairway to the mezzanine, walked across, and ascended the stairway to the northbound platform. ( Id. at 222-23).
Estevez was on the extreme northern end of the northbound platform at the time when O'Connor and Bruno encountered Plaintiff roughly five to six subway car lengths away. (Tr. 449-50). Estevez was watching for riders avoiding the subway fare by hopping over the turnstiles or going through in pairs; an occurrence of the former at the same time that O'Connor and Bruno first encountered Plaintiff temporarily distracted him. ( Id. at 450).
Plaintiff testified to a very different sequence of events. After transferring to the northbound E train at the Canal Street station, Plaintiff testified that he remained seated, fully awake and with his feet on the floor, for the two stops from Canal Street to West 4th Street. (Tr. 586-87). Plaintiff testified that there were only two other people on the train when he arrived at West 4th Street. ( Id. at 587-88). At West 4th Street, Plaintiff stood up of his own accord and walked out of the subway car, not encountering any officers until O'Connor called out to him after Plaintiff had taken roughly five steps off the train toward the stairs to the southbound platform. ( Id. at 588-89).
3. Plaintiff's Encounter with the Officers on the Platform
The testimony of the parties at trial momentarily converged at this point, as Plaintiff was standing on the northbound platform with O'Connor and Bruno, joined shortly by Percy. ( See Tr. 223-25 (Percy's testimony), 516 (O'Connor), 591-92 (Rucks)). O'Connor showed Plaintiff his badge and asked for his identification, which Plaintiff surrendered either to Bruno directly or to O'Connor, who then passed it to another of the Defendant Officers. ( See id. at 516, 592). Bruno ran a name check to see if Plaintiff had any outstanding warrants, which he did not. ( Id. at 516). After Percy arrived, Bruno borrowed a criminal summons (a " C-summons" ) from Percy and at O'Connor's instruction wrote a summons for disorderly conduct. ( Id. at 110-13).[4] The parties dispute Plaintiff's conduct during the issuance of the summons -- Plaintiff testified that he was silent and more or less motionless ( id. at 654-55), while the Defendant Officers testified that he was yelling, cursing, and attracting a crowd ( id. at 162-64, 292, 516-18) -- but agree that after receiving the summons, Plaintiff disposed of it in a nearby trash receptacle ( id. at 601-05).
Page 144
Plaintiff testified that, somewhat taken aback, he walked to the platform's edge to check for an approaching train, before remembering that he needed to relocate to the southbound platform. (Tr. 605). Upon remembering, he turned back in the direction of the officers, walking toward them to get to the stairway to the mezzanine, and told O'Connor, " You know you can't get away with this, right? This is BS." ( Id. at 605-08). At that point, Plaintiff testified, O'Connor yelled, " Cuff him," and placed a handcuff on Plaintiff's left wrist. ( Id. at 611). Plaintiff testified that he instinctually grabbed his arm, before one or more officers tripped him to the ground, where he grabbed onto the stairway railing adjacent to him as multiple officers struck him from atop him as they tried to get the handcuffs on his other wrist. ( Id. at 612-18). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was sprayed in the face with mace without warning. ( Id. at 619-20). Four to five seconds later the " beatdown" finally ended as Plaintiff was handcuffed, dragged to his feet, and marched out of the station by the Defendant Officers and multiple other officers who had arrived by this point. ( Id. at 618-23).
The Defendant Officers' testimony, with some variations between and among their accounts, paints a rather different portrait of the events immediately after Plaintiff discarded the summons. According to them, Plaintiff either touched or grabbed O'Connor and Bruno or menaced them, while pacing vigorously and cursing. (Tr. 185 (Percy testifying that Plaintiff grabbed O'Connor and Bruno's shoulders with one hand to each), 355-57 (Bruno testifying that Plaintiff grabbed or touched both O'Connor and Bruno), 523 (O'Connor testifying that Plaintiff touched neither officer, but came at them in a " boxer's stance" )). At this point, O'Connor put a handcuff on Plaintiff before a struggle commenced.
Estevez testified to seeing Plaintiff and the Defendant Officers in a pile on the ground and running over to help (Tr. 452); in addition, at least two other officers responded to a call for reinforcements radioed by Bruno during the struggle ( id. at 474-79). All three Defendant Officers described Plaintiff as having extraordinary strength, both at trial and to Assistant District Attorney Danielle Labadorf in the course of Plaintiff's subsequent criminal prosecution. ( Id. at 410-11). Percy in particular described Plaintiff as forcibly standing with five to six officers draped on him, and throwing officers back and forth across the narrow subway platform. ( Id. at 235-40). Percy, Bruno, and Estevez all attributed Plaintiff's strength potentially to the influence of narcotics, the former two specifically identifying PCP as a possibility ( id. at 203, 377, 455); Plaintiff, who is 5'9" and 185 pounds, denied having ever taken PCP or ingesting any drugs other than the single cup of wine that evening ( id. at 582-83). Ultimately, according to Percy, Percy sprayed mace into Plaintiff's face after warning him, and shortly thereafter the five to six officers were able to subdue him and remove him from the subway station. ( Id. at 240-43).
After being handcuffed, Plaintiff was taken to the Canal Street subway station precinct for booking. (Tr. 628). After being processed, Plaintiff was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center to have the mace washed out of his eyes. ( Id. at 631-32). Plaintiff also received an x-ray examination of his ribs ( id. at 632); though the hospital examination revealed no injuries, Plaintiff testified to numbness in his left arm, lacerations on his left wrist (which he supported with photographic evidence), and serious bruising ( id. at 643-45). Bruno was also taken to Bellevue Hospital from the scene with shortness of breath as well as neck and back pain. ( Id. at 471). Plaintiff appeared before a judge late on
Page 145
the evening of June 18, 2011, at which point he was charged with obstructing governmental administration and then released roughly 24 hours after his initial arrest. ( Id. at 634-36).
3. Plaintiff's State Court Prosecution
Plaintiff's case was presented to the Early Case Assessment Bureau (" ECAB" ) of the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where a criminal complaint and a D.A. data sheet (a set of internal notes) were drafted based on the declarations of Percy. (Tr. 392-401, 429). Plaintiff's case was reassigned to ADA Labadorf nearly six months later, in approximately December 2011, shortly after she began working at the District Attorney's office. At that point, 84 of the prosecution's 90 days of " chargeable time" had already run under New York's speedy trial law, N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. § 30.30. (Tr. 418). Labadorf met with Bruno and O'Connor on December 28, 2011, and with Percy and Estevez on other occasions. ( Id. at 407-09). During her meetings with the Officer Defendants and Estevez, the officers suggested that Plaintiff was " out of control" and " extremely strong ... the image of the [H]ulk." ( Id. at 411). On January 18, 2012, the State declared itself ready for trial, though trial did not proceed that day due to jury unavailability. ( Id. at 403-04).
On or about that date, Labadorf gave Plaintiff notice that the State was considering filing a felony charge. (Tr. 404-06). On February 7, 2012, Labadorf attended a proffer session with Plaintiff under a " queen for a day" agreement, pursuant to which Plaintiff's statements could not be used directly to prosecute him. ( Id. at 407). On February 9, 2012, there was another court appearance that did not result in trial. ( Id. at 414). On March 28, at yet another court appearance that did not result in trial, Labadorf withdrew notice of possible felony charges, intending to proceed on the misdemeanor charge of obstructing governmental authority. ( Id. at 414). Finally, at a court appearance on May 16, 2012, the State conceded that the time to bring the case under New York's speedy trial law had run, and the case was dismissed. ( Id. at 415).
C. Defendants' Mid-Trial Motion and the Verdict
Following the presentation of this evidence during Plaintiff's case, the parties conferred with the Court on July 11, 2014. Defendants made a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. (Tr. 721). Defendants argued that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate as to the false arrest claims against Percy and Bruno, as they were entitled to rely on the statements made to them by O'Connor that he saw Plaintiff sleeping on the train. ( Id. at 722). Defendants argued that no reasonable juror could find against any of Defendants for excessive force, given Plaintiff's lack of injuries. ( Id. at 722-24). Defendants further argued that the denial of fair trial claim necessarily failed because it was based on statements made by the Officer Defendants to Labadorf, which would be inadmissible at any prosecution of Plaintiff and subject to absolute immunity if recounted at trial. ( Id. at 724-31). Defendants next argued that the malicious prosecution claim failed as a matter of law because only Percy could be considered to have met the requirement of initiation. ( Id. at 732-34). Finally, Defendants argued that all of the Officer Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to each claim. ( Id. at 724). The Court reserved judgment on the motion. ( Id. at 733).
The Court then conferred with the parties regarding the charge, which had been previously distributed to the parties. Relevant
Page 146
to the instant motions, Plaintiff objected to the draft charge with regard to the state law assault and battery claims. (Tr. 747-49). As drafted (and ultimately read to the jury), the charge indicated that in the context of a lawful arrest, officers were entitled to use a reasonable amount of force, so that the assault and battery claims under state law would largely parallel the excessive force claim. Plaintiff argued that the jury should additionally be instructed that, in the event the arrest was found to be unjustified, i.e., lacking in probable cause, assault and battery would follow from the act of forcibly placing Plaintiff under arrest. ( Id. ). The charge as read to the jury did not reflect this argument or indicate that even a reasonable amount of force could constitute assault and battery in the absence of probable cause. ( Id. at 878-82).
The jury was charged on July 14, 2014, and it returned a verdict that same day. The jury found for Plaintiff against all Defendants on his false arrest claim, awarding $12,500 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. (Tr. 898-99). The jury found for Plaintiff against all Defendants as well on his denial of fair trail claim, awarding $12,500 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. ( Id. at 900-01). The jury found for Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery. ( Id. at 899-902). Plaintiff's counsel pointed out to the Court the inconsistency between the verdicts finding false arrest and not finding assault and battery, but the Court indicated that such objections would best be dealt with in post-trial motions. ( Id. at 903-04).
The Court then submitted to the jury a " Special Verdict Form" prepared after discussion with the parties, which the Court would use in assessing Defendants' claims of qualified immunity. (Tr. 902-09). The questions, and the jury's answers, were as follows:
1. Did Plaintiff have one or more of his feet on the seat on the subway? No.
2. Did Defendant Bruno believe that Plaintiff had one or more of his feet on the seat on the subway? No.
3. Did Defendant O'Connor believe that Plaintiff had one or more of his feet on the seat on the subway? Yes.
4. Did Defendant Percy believe that Plaintiff had one or more of his feet on the seat on the subway? Yes.
5. Did Plaintiff occupy more than one seat on the subway? No.
6. Did Defendant Bruno believe that Plaintiff was occupying more than one seat on the subway? No.
7. Did Defendant O'Connor believe that Plaintiff was occupying more than one seat on the subway? Yes.
8. Did Defendant Percy believe that Plaintiff was occupying more than one seat on the subway? Yes.
9. Was Plaintiff yelling on the subway platform prior to being placed into one or more handcuffs? No.
10. Was Plaintiff using abusive or obscene language prior to being placed into one or more handcuffs? No.
11. Were there other civilians in the subway station that observed Plaintiff's interaction with the police officers before Plaintiff was issued a summons? No.
12. Were there other civilians in the subway station that observed Plaintiff's interaction with the police officers after Plaintiff was issued a summons? No.
Page 147
13. Did Plaintiff intend to cause public annoyance or public alarm in the subway station? No.
13. Did Plaintiff intend to cause public annoyance or public alarm in the subway station? No.
14. Did the Defendant Officers believe that Plaintiff was approaching the police officers with his arms up in a hostile manner after he threw the summons in the garbage? No.
15. Did Plaintiff get within two feet of the Defendant Officers after he threw the summons in the garbage? Yes.
16. Did Plaintiff grab Defendant O'Connor's shoulders prior to being placed into one or more handcuffs? No.
17. Did Plaintiff grab Defendant Bruno's shoulders prior to being placed into one or more handcuffs? No.
18. Did Plaintiff physically touch any police officers at any point prior to being placed in one or more handcuffs? Yes.
(Def. Br., Ex. A; Tr. 922-25).
D. The Parties' Post-Trial Motions
On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff's state law assault and battery claims, and for a new trial on damages as to those claims. (Dkt. #78). On September 3, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff's false arrest and denial of fair trial claims, or in the alternative for a new trial. (Dkt. #81). Defendants filed their brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion on October 14, 2014 (Dkt. #84), and Plaintiff filed his brief in opposition to Defendants' motion on the same day (Dkt. #85). Plaintiff filed his reply brief in support of his motion on November 14, 2014 (Dkt. #89), and the briefing was complete upon the filing of Defendants' reply brief in support of their motion on November 17, 2014 (Dkt. #90).
A. Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 " imposes a heavy burden on a movant, who will be awarded judgment as a matter of law only when 'a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.'" Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1)); accord Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free Sch. Dist., 691 F.3d 119, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2012). The " burden is particularly heavy where, as here, the jury has deliberated in the case and actually returned its verdict in favor of the non-movant." Cash, 654 F.3d at 333 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such circumstances, a court may set aside the verdict only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, " there exists such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded persons could not arrive at a verdict against it." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Stampf v. Long Island R. Co., 761 F.3d 192, 197-98 (2d Cir. 2014); see also, e.g., Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 371 (2d Cir. 2007) (stating that a Rule 50 motion may be granted only if the court concludes that " a reasonable juror would have been compelled to accept the view of the moving party" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In deciding a motion under Rule 50, the Court must disregard any evidence that weighs against the jury's verdict unless the jury was required to believe it. Zellner, 494 F.3d at 370 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133, 150-51,
Page 148
120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). The jury is required to believe the testimony of unimpeached, disinterested, uncontradicted, and plausibly credible witnesses. See, e.g., Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151. The question is whether, if credibility assessments are made against the moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn against the moving party, a reasonable jury nevertheless would have no choice but to find in the movant's favor. Zellner, 494 F.3d at 370-71 (citing Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 343 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 authorizes a district court to " grant a motion for new trial under Rule 59 if 'the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or its verdict is a miscarriage of justice.'" Stampf, 761 F.3d at 202 (alteration omitted) (quoting Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 392 (2d Cir. 2005)). However, the Second Circuit's " cases teach that a high degree of deference is accorded to the jury's evaluation of witness credibility, and that jury verdicts should be disturbed with great infrequency." ING Global v. United Parcel Serv. Oasis Supply Corp., 757 F.3d 92, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2014).
Unlike on a Rule 50 motion, however, on a Rule 59 motion the court " may weigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses and need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner." But when, as here, " a verdict is predicated almost entirely on the jury's assessments of credibility, such a verdict generally should not be disturbed except in an egregious case, to correct a seriously erroneous result, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice."
Id. (quoting Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411, 418-19 (2d Cir. 2012)); accord DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124, 133-34 (2d Cir. 1998).
B. Analysis
1. Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or a New Trial Is Denied as to the Denial of Fair Trial Claim
" When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury's decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial, and the harm occasioned by such an unconscionable action is redressable in an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997). Elsewhere, the Second Circuit has stated that " [a] person suffers a constitutional violation if an [i] investigating official [ii] fabricates evidence [iii] that is likely to influence a jury's decision, [iv] forwards that information to prosecutors, and [v] the plaintiff suffers a deprivation of liberty as a result." Jovanovic v. City of New York, 486 Fed.Appx. 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). The Second Circuit made clear in Ricciuti that the claim is available even where a trial does not actually take place. See 124 F.3d at 127 (allowing claim where all charges were dismissed before trial). At the same time, the claim cannot be maintained where the fabricated information or evidence is testimony protected by absolute immunity, whether at trial or before a grand jury. See Jovanovic, 486 Fed.Appx. at 152.
Recently, the Second Circuit considered the impact on the denial of fair trial claim of the Supreme Court's decisions in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), and Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012), which extended absolute immunity to, respectively, trial testimony and grand jury proceedings as well as the immediate preparation for such proceedings. In Coggins v. Buonora,
Page 149
776 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2015), the Second Circuit held that Rehberg does not extend to false statements made to a prosecutor consistent with, but independent of, grand jury testimony. In evaluating a claim of denial of fair trial based on such statements,
the court should determine whether the plaintiff can make out the elements of his § 1983 claim without resorting to the grand jury testimony. If the claim exists independently of the grand jury testimony, it is not " based on" that testimony, as that term is used in Rehberg. Conversely, if the claim requires the grand jury testimony, the defendant enjoys absolute immunity under Rehberg.
Id. at 113 (internal citation omitted).
The core of the dispute between the parties in the instant case is on the second and third elements of the denial of fair trial claim as framed by Jovanovic ; essentially, the parties dispute whether the false statements that the jury determined the Defendant Officers made -- to each other, on police reports, and to ADA Labadorf -- constituted evidence likely to influence a jury's decision. Defendants argue that the statements of the Defendant Officers were inadmissible hearsay that could not have been likely to influence a jury; alternatively, to the extent the false narrative of Plaintiff's actions would have been repeated at trial, it would have been in testimonial form subject to absolute immunity under Rehberg. (Def. Br. 5-11).
These arguments are unavailing. First, it is clear that absolute immunity for trial testimony does not extend to cover statements made at any time that have some connection to future trial testimony. In Rehberg, the Supreme Court noted that its grant of absolute immunity for trial testimony would be " easily frustrated" if " a criminal defendant turned civil plaintiff," possessing little evidence but the false trial testimony, " could simply reframe a claim to attack the preparation instead of the absolutely immune actions themselves." 132 S.Ct. at 1506-07 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 283, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). That said, the Court explicitly disclaimed the notion " that absolute immunity extends to all activity that a witness conducts outside of the grand jury room," noting in particular the falsification of affidavits and the fabrication of evidence. Id. at 1507 n.1 (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the Second Circuit in Coggins upheld a claim based upon " Defendants' police reports, the [contradictory] statements of [another officer], [a defendant's] knowledge of the falsity of [another defendant's] police report, [a defendant's] statements to the district attorney, and police radio transmissions." 776 F.3d at 113 (footnote omitted). The Court went on to note that " [i]f discovery were to establish that [the defendant officer's] statements to the district attorney constituted 'preparatory activity' conducted in advance of his grand jury testimony, [the officer] would be entitled to absolute immunity for that limited conduct" pursuant to Rehberg . Id. at 113 n.7. Coggins, then, effectively requires a court considering a claim of denial of fair trial based upon statements (rather than physical evidence) to distinguish between preparatory activity and pre-preparatory activity in determining absolute immunity.
A further hurdle to Plaintiff's fair trial claim is the question of admissibility. Defendants correctly point out that none of the statements made by the Defendant Officers that might form the basis of the fair trial claim would have been directly admissible at such a trial; only the statements made at trial would be admissible, and those would be protected by Briscoe. Yet accepting that a false statement itself
Page 150
must be admissible would ensure that a denial of fair trial claim based upon a fabricated narrative could never successfully navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of admissibility and immunity, thus restricting the cause of action to fabricated physical evidence or confessions. Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, however, have declined to endorse this result, maintaining the availability of a cause of action under Section 1983 against " law enforcement officials who falsify affidavits," Rehberg, 132 S.Ct. at 1507 n.1, and for false " police report[s], ... statements to the district attorney, and police radio transmissions," Coggins, 776 F.3d at 113.
At least one court in this Circuit has resolved this dilemma by distinguishing between statements that are merely prefatory to a defendant officer's own testimony, and those that are designed to elicit the false testimony of others, thus forming an " extra-judicial course of conduct taken on the officer's part to secure the conviction of the plaintiff with a fabricated story." Fappiano v. City of New York, No. 01 Civ. 2476 (SLT)(SMG), 2015 WL 94190, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted) (quoting approvingly and distinguishing Mitchell v. City of Boston, 130 F.Supp.2d 201, 213 (D. Mass. 2001)). Such an analysis comports with that of the Coggins Court, which upheld a district court's finding that " conduct that laid the groundwork for [a criminal defendant's] indictment" could form the basis of liability for a subsequent Section 1983 action. 776 F.3d at 113. Other courts have found that, under Jovanovic, a plaintiff " need not demonstrate that the purportedly false statements would reach a jury because he has demonstrated ... that [a civil defendant's] alleged fabrication of evidence led to his brief pre-trial detention." Jean-Laurent v. Bowman, No. 12 Civ. 2954 (KAM)(LB), 2014 WL 4662232, at *3 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014). Finally, it has been noted, under a reading of Rehberg subsequently ratified by Coggins, that
courts in this Circuit have declined to grant absolute immunity to officers for allegedly falsifying evidence such as a post-arrest affidavit that contained allegedly false information; an allegedly false and misleading police report; and an allegedly false narrative of events preceding plaintiff's arrest provided to another officer, who in turn forwarded the information to the prosecutor, despite the fact that those officers may have testified before a grand jury as to the same facts underlying such evidence.
Garnett v. City of New York, No. 13 Civ. 7083 (GHW), 2014 WL 3950904, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014) (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases). The Garnett Court found that, " [c]onstruing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, a juror could find that this allegedly fabricated evidence was likely to influence a jury's verdict and deprived [the plaintiff] of his liberty as a result." Id.
The jury in this case, presented with overwhelmingly similar testimony from the Defendant Officers and other officer witnesses as to Plaintiff's conduct on both the train and the platform, deemed such evidence to be almost entirely false, crediting Plaintiff's narrative instead. That same false evidence was written in police reports and memorialized in the criminal complaint relied upon by the prosecutor -- and, the jury was entitled to find, was relayed to the prosecutor to persuade her to consider bringing felony charges against Plaintiff in a manner that deprived him of his liberty. The jury, weighing the credibility of the witnesses presented to it, can only have concluded that the Defendant Officers somehow harmonized their own false testimony
Page 151
to that of other officers to create a false narrative that influenced the course of Plaintiff's prosecution and would have influenced a jury. In so finding, the jury necessarily engaged in a certain amount of speculation as to the shape that this collaboratively compiled false narrative would take upon being presented to a criminal jury. But that speculation is not a basis to invalidate a denial of fair trial claim; rather, it is an inevitable byproduct of Ricciuti 's sanctioning of denial of fair trial claims based on a trial that never occurs. The Court is bound by that decision; it is therefore unwilling, where the jurors have already evaluated the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, to overturn their judgment. See Cash, 654 F.3d at 333; Zellner, 494 F.3d at 371.
2. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity on the False Arrest Claim
Defendants next argue that the Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to false arrest. (Def. Br. 12-16). A claim for false arrest by police officers, under both New York and federal law, requires that the arrest not be supported by probable cause. See Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996). The Second Circuit has made clear that " the probable cause inquiry is based upon whether the facts known by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest objectively provided probable cause to arrest," and that a false arrest claim fails if the objective evidence indicates that there was probable cause to find any offense, not merely that invoked by the officers at the time. Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004)). An arresting officer " enjoys qualified immunity if 'it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause existed' or if 'officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met.'" Caceres v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 631 F.3d 620, 622 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir. 1987)).
Both parties agree that, if Plaintiff had his feet on the seats in violation of transit rules, there was probable cause to arrest him. Accordingly, Defendants rest their case for qualified immunity on the answers given by the jury on the special verdict form.[5] The jury found that Plaintiff was not sleeping and did not have his feet on the seats, but at the same time found that O'Connor and Percy, each of whom testified to seeing Plaintiff lying fully stretched out with his feet on the seats, believed that Plaintiff had his feet on the seats. (Def. Br., Ex. A). Defendants argue
Page 152
that " any reasonable officer would have felt he was ... entitled to rely on what his own eyes were seeing," and that " [t]he reasonableness of this mistaken judgment is evidenced by the jury's finding that not one, but two different police officers, each from a different unobstructed vantage point, mistakenly believed that plaintiff had placed his feet on a subway seat." ( Id. at 14 & n.18).
Although qualified immunity must be determined from the perspective of a reasonable officer " possessing the same knowledge as the officer in question," Zellner, 494 F.3d at 368 (quoting Lee v. Sandberg, 136 F.3d 94, 102 (2d Cir. 1997)), Defendants' argument would collapse the distinction between an objective and a subjective inquiry, essentially allowing one to infer objective reasonableness from sincere subjective belief. Yet the Supreme Court has cautioned that " an arresting officer's state of mind (except for the facts that he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause." Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153. Defendants attempt to turn the officers' belief that Plaintiff had his feet on the seats into a fact : that the officers saw Plaintiff's feet on the seats. Yet a mistaken subjective belief is not a fact relevant to the objective existence of probable cause; to say otherwise, or to say that finding a sincere subjective belief in X is inconsistent with finding a perception of X to be objectively unreasonable, would be to transform the probable cause inquiry from an objective one into a subjective one.
Setting aside the jury's credence of Percy's and O'Connor's subjective beliefs that Plaintiff had his feet on the seats, the Court struggles to find any evidence in the record to suggest that it was objectively reasonable for two officers seeing a person seated with his feet on the floor -- as the jury found was the case -- to believe that there was probable cause to arrest him for having his feet on the seats. As Defendants themselves acknowledge, each officer testified to having " a different unobstructed vantage point" from which to view Plaintiff. (Def. Br. 14). Under these circumstances, no reasonable officer could have concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for having his feet on the seats, or any other conduct prior to his arrest, and thus O'Connell and Percy are not entitled to qualified immunity as to false arrest.[6]
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and a New Trial on Damages as to the Assault and Battery Claim Is Granted
Under New York law, " [a]n assault is 'an intentional placing of another person in fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact'; a battery is 'intentional wrongful physical contact with another person without consent.'" Sulkowska v. City of New York, 129 F.Supp.2d 274, 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Lederman v. Adams, 45 F.Supp.2d 259, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). Thus, " [i]f an arrest is determined to be unlawful, any use of force against a plaintiff may constitute an assault and battery,
Page 153
regardless of whether the force would be deemed reasonable if applied during a lawful arrest." Id. (collecting New York state cases); accord Mesa v. City of New York, No. 09 Civ. 10464 (JPO), 2013 WL 31002, at *32 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013) (" In New York, when there is no probable cause for an arrest, all force employed during that arrest is unlawful." ). In fact, where an arrest is unlawful and without consent, the use of force in an arrest must give rise to a claim for assault and battery. See Johnson v. Suffolk Cnty. Police Dep't, 245 A.D.2d 340, 665 N.Y.S.2d 440, 441 (2d Dep't 1997) (granting judgment as a matter of law on assault and battery after a previous judgment finding false arrest and a jury verdict finding for defendant on assault and battery). Defendants effectively concede as much, arguing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion only that the Defendant Officers should be granted qualified immunity as to false arrest. (Def. Opp. 2-3).
In the context of a general verdict, the Second Circuit has taken the position that " any inconsistency between general verdicts on [a plaintiff's] federal and state claims would not necessarily require retrial." Cash, 654 F.3d at 343 (citing Globus v. Law Research Serv., Inc., 418 F.2d 1276, 1290 n.17 (2d Cir. 1969) (" [C]onsistent jury verdicts are not, in themselves, necessary attributes of a valid judgment [in a civil action]." ); U.S. Football League v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.Supp. 1040, 1045-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (observing that consistent verdicts in separate claims not required), aff'd, 842 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir. 1988)).[7] On the other hand, " [w]here there are seeming inconsistencies between interrogatory responses and a general verdict, a trial court should normally attempt to reconcile them," and " [w]hen the verdicts are not capable of reconciliation and resubmission of the determinations for reconsideration or clarification is not possible because the jury has been discharged, a new trial may be -- but is not always -- required." Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., 975 F.2d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 1992).
Here, the interrogatory responses are flatly inconsistent with the general verdict on assault and battery. The jury found that Plaintiff did not have his feet on the subway, was not occupying multiple seats, was not yelling or using abusive language prior to being handcuffed, did not intend to cause public annoyance or alarm, and did not grab any officer's shoulder; that the officers did not believe that Plaintiff was approaching them in a hostile manner; and that no one else crowded around or witnessed Plaintiff's interactions with the officers before or after he was issued a summons. (Def. Br., Ex. A). The jury did find that Plaintiff approached within two feet of the officers and physically touched one or more of them ( id. ), but Defendants have offered no offense for which this behavior would provide probable cause to make an arrest.
Page 154
Where a jury returns both a general verdict and answers to written questions, and " the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict," a district court may " (A) approve, for entry under Rule 58, an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict; (B) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or (C) order a new trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b)(3); see also Lavoie, 975 F.2d at 53 (noting that " Rule 49(b) instructs the trial court how to proceed when there are inconsistencies between the answers to the interrogatories and the general verdict" ).
Although courts faced with such irreconcilable tensions generally opt for a new trial, the Court finds that entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff as to the assault and battery claims is appropriate here due to Court's error in charging the jury.[8] As noted supra, the Court drafted a charge that instructed the jury only that the assault and battery claim parallels that for excessive force, and failed to note that in the context of an unlawful arrest, any use of force constituted battery and any threatened use of force (such as saying " cuff him," or warning that Plaintiff would be sprayed with mace) constituted assault. Plaintiff timely objected to this charge, but the Court incorrectly charged the jury regardless. Due to this error in charging the jury, there is actually no inconsistency between the jury's general verdict on assault and battery as charged and its answers to the interrogatories: nowhere in the interrogatory responses did the jury indicate that the force used was excessive. Under these specific facts, it is not a case where in the presence of " [i]nconsistent verdicts ... it is unclear whose ox has been gored." United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). It is quite clear, rather, that Plaintiff's ox has been gored, and thus that the entry of judgment as a matter of law, as contemplated by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 49(b)(3)(A) and 50(b)(3), is appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as to damages is granted.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial is DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as to damages is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entries 78 and 81.
The parties are directed to appear before the Court for a status conference to discuss next steps in the litigation on May 5, 2015, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Award-Winning French Tutors in Ballston Lake, NY
Kimberly ...teach a tai chi course focused on preventing falls to older clients, read fiction voraciously (especially classics, but I have a soft spot for fantasy novels), play the Celtic harp, co-lead a Girl Scout troop, and serve as Secretary and Webmaster for the PTO and a mental health crisis volunteer for the Medical Reserve Corps. I also enjoy family time with my marathon-running husband, four rescue cats, and my lovely eleven-year-old daughter, who is an...
University of North Texas - Bachelors, English
SUNY at Albany - PhD, Social Psychology
Elisabeth ...years to come. It is important to me that each student makes academic goals and that I help achieve those goals so that every student feels successful and well equipped to handle material on their own. I think that it is crucial that students also learn what resources they have available to them when a tutor or teacher is not available, and how to employ those resources. I think it is vital that I help...
The University of Vermont - Bachelors, Psychology
SUNY at Albany - PhD, Clinical Psychology
Sebastian ...Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York. I am a very enthusiastic and energetic student looking to help young kids do well in school and improve their learning and studying skills. I reached my goal of going to a top engineering school because of all the help I received while growing up, and I now want to return the favor and help students reach their academic goals and feel proud of their achievements.... Every student is different, so I like to find the proper learning/teaching style and incorporate it to convey topics as well as possible. Reciprocal communication is also key; students should feel comfortable to stop me and ask me questions!
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Current Undergrad, Biomedical Engineering
Komla We all speak a language which makes it common to all of us. This reflects the nature of language and the will or the need to communicate. Yet all the languages are not the same and, learning them can be something difficult but necessary for intercultural exchange to people in contact. I will be glad as a French near-native speaker, to help people achieve that goal. ... Study a language when you passed, what I can call, the language acquisition period. Language acquisition can be difficult beyond this period. My teaching philosophy is participative, and tries to make students in that situation to learn in my lectures and in motivated discussions. it makes students practice on what I taught.
SUNY at Albany - Bachelors, French /Linguistics
SUNY at Albany - PhD, french
Patricia ...on the latest teaching methods and belong to several local clubs to keep my language skills fresh. I have traveled to France, Switzerland, Quebec, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. I have spent 4 summers studying abroad. I use a variety of methods to reach all learners: auditory, visual, and hands-on learners. I bring the real world to you, using a variety of resources on- and off-line. If we are practicing the numbers, then we use some...
SUNY New Paltz - Bachelors, French
SUNY New Paltz - Masters, Secondary Education: French
Sean ...thereafter, I began working for a private company as a tutor for students with special needs, as well as those with English as their second language (in reading, writing and math). At this point, I also took on a few private tutoring jobs, with someone of Japanese descent, as well as a couple students who were of Mexican descent. I worked at an autism spectrum school for about four years as a direct care staff...
The College of Saint Rose - Bachelors, Spanish
Central Connecticut State University - Masters, Special Education
Rebecca ...languages and enjoy tutoring in these subjects most. I have extensive experience as an academic tutor. I worked one-on-one with a middle school student as an academic tutor and mentor throughout my college career at the University of Michigan. I work in all subject areas, including math and science. I am patient, a good listener, and am adept at accommodating different learning styles. In my spare time I love to read and spend time outdoors.
University of Michigan - BA, English
Keenan ...with language on the page, and vice versa. For several years, I was the lead Writing Tutor at Bennington College, a school renowned for its literature department. While a student at Bennington, I studied literature, music, and French. I graduated with honors, and was the commencement speaker for the class of 2011. After graduating, I ran an acting camp, and then taught English in Tibet for eight months. Since returning, I have written CCSS-aligned English...
Bennington College - BA, Literature
Marilene ...a native speaker of French, fluent in English. I have years of experience teaching French language, culture, literature and cinema at all levels in higher education (one university in Minnesota and two in Georgia). I also organized or contributed to group conversations chatting in French on many topics (France & French speaking countries or regions, food, films, music, news etc.) I also have experience in tutoring learners of French and English. I can tutor children,...
Lille 3 - Bachelors, French language and literature
Emory University - PHD, French
Caroline I like teaching one-on-one sessions because it is an effective and rewarding learning format. I search for different ways to help my students achieve progress. The underlying, essential goal in teaching the French language is to establish in my students an ongoing interest and desire to learn. There is never a reason to get embarrassed or ashamed. I am here to help and motivate you! If there is a desire, there is a way!
Lycee Clos-Maire, Beaune, France - BA, Liberal Arts
Pima Community College - Associates, Liberal Arts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sunday, July 4, 2010
about 10 foods only America could have invented and that is when I knew I wanted to make S'mores.
Marshmallows: Simple and Sweet!
check out her Facebook page), if there was anything she wanted for me to bring back for her and she gushed about Jet Puffed Marshmallows! I too have asked my Mom to stuff a couple of bags into her suitcase, particularly around Thanksgiving, because, well, candied sweet potatoes and hot chocolate with marshmallows are top notch!
Graham Crackers: An American Treat
my recipe for S'mores I needed to make Graham crackers, which besides snacking, pie crusts and S'mores have no other culinary purpose. I had attempted to make them once before using a recipe from 101 Cookbooks, which could have turned out better, so this time I opted for an Alton Brown recipe. He is one of my favorite TV food personalities, because I love his use of science to dissect a recipe and demystifying the "magic" that happens in the kitchen.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Dark & Light Brown Sugar: Make Your Own!
Beth Orton version; in my head) As I was rummaging through my pantry yesterday, I ran into a little bit of a dilemma. I could not find dark brown sugar, there wasn't any the three grocery stores in Kyustendil and I didn't have time to swing (50 ml/ 90 km) to Sofia to pick some up. I knew that you could make it at home, but I hadn't attempted it before.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
When I first asked for eating recommendations in Plovdiv, the biggest fan fare came in support of Sombrero , a Mexican restaurant in Plovd...
In the past year, the topic of food waste as been brought more clearly into my life. It started with helping to found the Slow Food Youth Ne...
My love of Asian food stems from growing up in Brooklyn, one of the five boroughs of New York City. As far back as my memory goes it is fi...
8pm or Осем Вечерта is a unique space, it seems to be a coffee boutique that also doubles as an office for the 8pm PR team . It opened thi...
Bistro Comercial has been on my radar for quite some time, yet I put of visiting till the smoking ban went into effect. The place is lov...


text:
The XF range is everything you need from a business saloon with its dynamic drive, distinctive aerodynamic design, class-leading rear space and state-of-the-art technologies that make every journey safer and keep you connected.
|Representative Example†
|Prestige 2.0d 163ps Manual
|On the Road Price
|Finance Deposit Allowance
|Customer Deposit
|Total Amount of Credit
|Purchase Fee (included in final payment)
|36 Monthly Payments
|Final Payment
|Total Amount Payable
|Duration of Agreement
|37 Months
|Representative APR
|Interest Rate (Fixed) %
*With a PCP plan, your regular monthly payments are low because a significant proportion of the Total Amount Payable is repayable at the end of the agreement by one large repayment. †Representative 4.9% APR available on new Jaguar XF models only registered between 1st October and 31th December 2016 at participating retailers only. With Jaguar Privilege you have the option at the end of the agreement to: (1) return the vehicle and not pay the Final Payment. If the vehicle has exceeded the allowed mileage a charge per excess mile will apply. In this example, 14p per excess mile up to 4,999, or for excess mileage of 5,000 or more, a charge of 28p will apply to each excess mile above the allowed mileage. If the vehicle is in good condition and has not exceeded the allowed mileage you will have nothing further to pay; (2) pay the Final Payment to own the vehicle or (3) part exchange the vehicle subject to settlement of your existing credit agreement; new credit agreements are subject to status. Representative example is based on an annual mileage of 10,000 miles. Credit is subject to status and only available to applicants aged 18 and over resident in Mainland UK and N.Ireland. This credit offer is available from Black Horse Limited trading as Jaguar Financial Services, St William House, Tresillian Terrace, Cardiff CF10 5BH. We can introduce you to Jaguar Financial Services and a limited number of other lenders to provide funding for your vehicle. We may receive commission or other benefits for introducing you to such lenders. Model shown is the XF Saloon 2.0D 163PS Prestige Auto with optional Rhodium Silver metallic paint (£690.00), on the road £32,300.


text:
About |
Policies |
Contact |
Las Vegas
Call Us: 1-800-318-2220
Ann Arbor, MI
University Park, PA
Columbus, OH
Piscataway, NJ
East Lansing, MI
Madison, WI
College Park, MD
Iowa City, IA
Minneapolis, MN
Evanston, IL
West Lafayette, IN
Lincoln, NE
Baltimore, MD
Bloomington, IN
Champaign, IL
Los Angeles, CA
Miami Gardens, FL
Bridgeport, CT
New York, NY
Gainesville, FL
West Point, NY
Burlington, VT
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Glendale, AZ
Arlington, TX
Orlando, FL
Pasadena, CA
San Diego, CA
Detroit, MI
New Orleans, LA
Las Vegas, NV
Newark, NJ
Tucson, AZ
Philadelphia, PA
Indianapolis, IN
Tempe, AZ
U.S.A.F. Academy, CO
Nashville, TN
San Antonio, TX
Houston, TX
Memphis, TN
Chicago, IL
Saint Paul, MN
Stony Brook, NY
Duluth, MN
Corpus Christi, TX
Charlotte, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Boise, ID
Saint Petersburg, FL
Boca Raton, FL
Albuquerque, NM
Montgomery, AL
Miami, FL
Fort Worth, TX
Mobile, AL
Aiea, HI
Shreveport, LA
Dallas, TX
Annapolis, MD
Phoenix, AZ
Bronx, NY
Birmingham, AL
El Paso, TX
Lawrence, KS
Santa Clara, CA
St. Louis, MO
Milwaukee, WI
Salt Lake City, UT
Boulder, CO
Eugene, OR
Corvallis, OR
Seattle, WA
Pullman, WA
Hartford, CT
Lexington, KY
Columbia, MO
Columbia, SC
Des Moines, IA
Bangor, ME
Toledo, OH
Chattanooga, TN
Spokane, WA
Basketball - College (Div I-A and Div I-AA)
Football - College (Div I-A and Div I-AA)
Hockey - College (Div I-A and Div I-AA)
Wrestling - College (Div I-A and Div I-AA)
Football - Other
NCAA Bowl Games
Michigan Wolverines Football
Orange Bowl
Michigan Wolverines
Florida State Seminoles Football
Florida State Seminoles
Central Arkansas Bears Basketball
Central Arkansas Bears
Michigan Wolverines Basketball
Arizona State Sun Devils Basketball
Arizona State Sun Devils
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders Basketball
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders
Loyola Greyhounds Women's Basketball
Loyola Greyhounds
Maryland Terrapins
Maryland Terrapins Women's Basketball
Loyola Greyhounds Basketball
UMass Lowell River Hawks
UMass Lowell River Hawks Basketball
American University Eagles Women's Basketball
American University Eagles
Lafayette Leopards
Lafayette Leopards Basketball
Lehigh Mountain Hawks
Lehigh Mountain Hawks Women's Basketball
Army West Point Black Knights
Army West Point Black Knights Women's Basketball
Navy Midshipmen Basketball
Navy Midshipmen
Bucknell Bison
Bucknell Bison Basketball
Bucknell Bison Women's Basketball
Colgate Red Raiders Women's Basketball
Colgate Red Raiders Basketball
Colgate Red Raiders
Holy Cross Crusaders Basketball
Holy Cross Crusaders
Rutgers Scarlet Knights Basketball
Stony Brook Seawolves
Stony Brook Seawolves Basketball
Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Rutgers Scarlet Knights Women's Basketball
Seton Hall Pirates
Seton Hall Pirates Women's Basketball
Fairleigh Dickinson Knights Basketball
Fairleigh Dickinson Knights
Temple Owls
Temple Owls Women's Basketball
Penn State Nittany Lions
St. Johns Red Storm Basketball
Fordham Rams Basketball
St. Johns Red Storm
Penn State Nittany Lions Basketball
Fordham Rams
Seton Hall Pirates Basketball
Wisconsin Badgers Basketball
Wisconsin Badgers
Michigan Wolverines Women's Basketball
Penn State Lady Lions
Penn State Lady Lions Women's Basketball
Penn State Nittany Lions Women's Basketball
Michigan State Spartans
Michigan State Spartans Basketball
Wisconsin Badgers Women's Basketball
Illinois Fighting Illini
Illinois Fighting Illini Wrestling
Rutgers Scarlet Knights Wrestling
Iowa Hawkeyes Basketball
Iowa Hawkeyes
Ohio State Buckeyes Wrestling
Ohio State Buckeyes
Nebraska Cornhuskers
Nebraska Cornhuskers Women's Basketball
Northwestern Wildcats Basketball
Northwestern Wildcats
Penn State Nittany Lions Wrestling
Michigan State Spartans Women's Basketball
Indiana Hoosiers
Indiana Hoosiers Basketball
Iowa Hawkeyes Women's Basketball
Oregon State Beavers Wrestling
Oregon State Beavers
Nebraska Cornhuskers Basketball
Purdue Boilermakers
Purdue Boilermakers Wrestling
Maryland Terrapins Basketball
Northwestern Wildcats Women's Basketball
Indiana Hoosiers Wrestling
Indiana Hoosiers Women's Basketball
Ohio State Buckeyes Basketball
Minnesota Golden Gophers
Minnesota Golden Gophers Basketball
Northwestern Wildcats Wrestling
Purdue Boilermakers Basketball
Purdue Boilermakers Women's Basketball
Ohio State Buckeyes Women's Basketball
Illinois Fighting Illini Basketball
Rutgers Scarlet Knights Football
Morgan State Bears Football
Morgan State Bears
Eastern Michigan Eagles Football
Eastern Michigan Eagles
Nebraska Cornhuskers Football
Ohio State Buckeyes Football
Purdue Boilermakers Football
Penn State Nittany Lions Football
Michigan State Spartans Football
Grambling State Tigers
Grambling State Tigers Football
Celebration Bowl
North Carolina Central Eagles
North Carolina Central Eagles Football
UTSA Roadrunners
UTSA Roadrunners Football
New Mexico Lobos Football
New Mexico Lobos
New Mexico Bowl
Las Vegas Bowl
San Diego State Aztecs Football
Houston Cougars Football
Houston Cougars
San Diego State Aztecs
Camellia Bowl
Toledo Rockets
Appalachian State Mountaineers Football
Toledo Rockets Football
Appalachian State Mountaineers
Arkansas State Red Wolves
UCF Knights
Arkansas State Red Wolves Football
UCF Knights Football
Cure Bowl
New Orleans Bowl
UL Lafayette Ragin Cajuns
UL Lafayette Ragin Cajuns Football
Southern Miss Golden Eagles Football
Southern Miss Golden Eagles
Tulsa Golden Hurricane Football
Central Michigan Chippewas Football
Miami Beach Bowl
Central Michigan Chippewas
Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Memphis Tigers Football
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers
Boca Raton Bowl
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers Football
Memphis Tigers
Poinsettia Bowl
Wyoming Cowboys Football
BYU Cougars Football
BYU Cougars
Wyoming Cowboys
Idaho Vandals
Famous Idaho Potato Bowl
Colorado State Rams Football
Idaho Vandals Football
Colorado State Rams
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
Armed Forces Bowl
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs Football
Navy Midshipmen Football
Troy Trojans Football
Troy Trojans
Ohio Bobcats Football
Dollar General Bowl
Ohio Bobcats
Hawaii Warriors
Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders
Sheraton Hawaii Bowl
Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders Football
Hawaii Warriors Football
St. Petersburg Bowl
Mississippi State Bulldogs Football
Miami (OH) Redhawks
Miami (OH) Redhawks Football
Mississippi State Bulldogs
Boston College Eagles Football
Maryland Terrapins Football
Boston College Eagles
Quick Lane Bowl
North Carolina State Wolfpack Football
Independence Bowl
North Carolina State Wolfpack
Vanderbilt Commodores
Vanderbilt Commodores Football
Army West Point Black Knights Football
North Texas Mean Green
North Texas Mean Green Football
Heart of Dallas Bowl
Wake Forest Demon Deacons Football
Wake Forest Demon Deacons
Military Bowl
Temple Owls Football
Washington State Cougars
Holiday Bowl
Washington State Cougars Football
Minnesota Golden Gophers Football
Boise State Broncos
Baylor Bears Football
Boise State Broncos Football
Baylor Bears
Cactus Bowl
AdvoCare Texas Bowl
Kansas State Wildcats
Texas A&M Aggies
Kansas State Wildcats Football
Texas A&M Aggies Football
Pittsburgh Panthers Football
New Era Pinstripe Bowl
Pittsburgh Panthers
Northwestern Wildcats Football
Foster Farms Bowl
Indiana Hoosiers Football
Utah Utes
Utah Utes Football
Miami Hurricanes
Miami Hurricanes Football
Russell Athletic Bowl
West Virginia Mountaineers
West Virginia Mountaineers Football
Alamo Bowl
South Carolina Gamecocks Football
South Florida Bulls Football
Birmingham Bowl
South Florida Bulls
South Carolina Gamecocks
Virginia Tech Hokies
Belk Bowl
Arkansas Razorbacks Football
Arkansas Razorbacks
Virginia Tech Hokies Football
Colorado Buffaloes Football
Oklahoma State Cowboys
Oklahoma State Cowboys Football
Colorado Buffaloes
Alabama Crimson Tide
Alabama Crimson Tide Football
Washington Huskies Football
Washington Huskies
College Football Playoffs
Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl
AutoZone Liberty Bowl
Music City Bowl
Tennessee Volunteers Football
Tennessee Volunteers
Fiesta Bowl
Clemson Tigers Football
Clemson Tigers
Buffalo Wild Wings Citrus Bowl
TCU Horned Frogs Football
TCU Horned Frogs
Georgia Bulldogs Football
Georgia Bulldogs
Stanford Cardinal
North Carolina Tar Heels
Stanford Cardinal Football
North Carolina Tar Heels Football
Sun Bowl
Arizona Bowl
South Alabama Jaguars Football
Air Force Falcons
South Alabama Jaguars
Air Force Falcons Football
Fiesta Bowl Parking
Chick-fil-a Bowl
Chick-fil-A Bowl Fan Fest
LSU Tigers Football
LSU Tigers
Louisville Cardinals
Louisville Cardinals Football
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets Football
Kentucky Wildcats Football
Kentucky Wildcats
TaxSlayer Bowl
Rose Bowl
Outback Bowl
Cotton Bowl
Western Michigan Broncos
Western Michigan Broncos Football
Wisconsin Badgers Football
Iowa Hawkeyes Football
Florida Gators
Florida Gators Football
USC Trojans Football
USC Trojans
Oklahoma Sooners Football
Auburn Tigers Football
Sugar Bowl
Auburn Tigers
Oklahoma Sooners
College Football Championship Game
Pittsburgh Panthers Women's Basketball
Iona Gaels Women's Basketball
Iona Gaels
Penn State Lady Lions Basketball
Illinois Fighting Illini Women's Basketball
Minnesota Golden Gophers Women's Basketball
Army West Point Black Knights Hockey
Mercyhurst Lakers
Mercyhurst Lakers Hockey
RMC Paladins Hockey
RMC Paladins
Air Force Falcons Hockey
Niagara Purple Eagles Hockey
Niagara Purple Eagles
Holy Cross Crusaders Hockey
American International Yellow Jackets Hockey
American International Yellow Jackets
Cincinnati Bearcats Football
Cincinnati Bearcats
Northern Colorado Bears Football
Northern Colorado Bears
Missouri Tigers
Missouri Tigers Football
UAB Blazers
UAB Blazers Football
Chick-fil-A College Kickoff
Furman Paladins Basketball
Furman Paladins
Chattanooga Mocs Basketball
Chattanooga Mocs
Sacred Heart Pioneers Hockey
Sacred Heart Pioneers
Central Michigan Chippewas Basketball
Dayton Flyers
BYU Cougars Basketball
State Farm Chicago Legends
Dayton Flyers Basketball
Missouri Tigers Basketball
Houston Baptist Huskies
Houston Baptist Huskies Basketball
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Butler Bulldogs
Crossroads Classic
Butler Bulldogs Basketball
Notre Dame Fighting Irish Basketball
Delaware State Hornets Basketball
Delaware State Hornets
Austin Peay Governors
Austin Peay Governors Basketball
Louisville Cardinals Basketball
Northern Kentucky Norse
Northern Kentucky Norse Women's Basketball
Valparaiso Crusaders Basketball
Valparaiso Crusaders
Oakland University Golden Grizzlies Women's Basketball
Oakland University Golden Grizzlies
Maryland Lady Terrapins
Maryland Lady Terrapins Women's Basketball
Iowa State Cyclones Basketball
Iowa State Cyclones
Hy-Vee Classic
Drake Bulldogs
Drake Bulldogs Basketball
Northern Iowa Panthers Basketball
Northern Iowa Panthers
North Dakota Fighting Hawks Basketball
North Dakota Fighting Hawks
Iowa State Cyclones Women's Basketball
Robert Morris Colonials
Robert Morris Colonials Basketball
Kent State Golden Flashes
Kent State Golden Flashes Women's Basketball
Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks Basketball
Virginia Tech Hokies Basketball
Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks
UCF Knights Basketball
Howard Bison
Howard Bison Basketball
St. Peter's Peacocks Basketball
St. Peter's Peacocks
Jacksonville State Gamecocks
Jacksonville State Gamecocks Basketball
North Carolina Charlotte 49ers
North Carolina Charlotte 49ers Basketball
St. Peter's Peacocks Women's Basketball
UConn Huskies Women's Basketball
UConn Women's Basketball
UConn Huskies
Towson Tigers
Towson Tigers Football
Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles Basketball
Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles
Northeastern Huskies
Northeastern Huskies Basketball
Oakland University Golden Grizzlies Basketball
Bowling Green Falcons
Notre Dame Fighting Irish Football
Michigan State Spartans Hockey
Minnesota Golden Gophers Hockey
Northeastern Huskies Hockey
Wisconsin Badgers Hockey
Penn State Nittany Lions Hockey
Michigan Wolverines Hockey
Ohio State Buckeyes Hockey
UCLA Bruins
UCLA Bruins Basketball
Ohio Bobcats Women's Basketball
Vermont Catamounts Women's Basketball
Vermont Catamounts
Georgia Southern Eagles
Georgia Southern Eagles Basketball
Northern Illinois Huskies
Northern Illinois Huskies Basketball
LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds
LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds Basketball
Arkansas State Red Wolves Basketball
South Carolina Gamecocks Women's Basketball
UMass Minutemen Hockey
Mariucci Classic
Alabama-Huntsville Chargers Hockey
Alabama-Huntsville Chargers
UMass Minutemen
Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs
Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs Hockey
Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs Women's Hockey
Bemidji State Beavers
North Star College Cup
Bemidji State Beavers Hockey
St. Cloud State Huskies
St. Cloud State Huskies Hockey
Kansas Jayhawks
Kansas Jayhawks Basketball
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs
Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs Basketball
Southern Jaguars Basketball
Southern Jaguars
San Jose State Spartans Women's Basketball
San Jose State Spartans
University of New Orleans (UNO) Privateers Basketball
University of New Orleans (UNO) Privateers
Chicago State Cougars Basketball
Chicago State Cougars
IUPUI Jaguars
IUPUI Jaguars Basketball
Illinois-Chicago Flames Women's Basketball
Illinois-Chicago Flames
Gonzaga Bulldogs Women's Basketball
Gonzaga Bulldogs
Toledo Rockets Women's Basketball
UConn Huskies Basketball
Canisius Golden Griffins Basketball
Canisius Golden Griffins
Alabama State Hornets Basketball
Alabama State Hornets
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball
CBS Sports Classic
North Carolina Tar Heels Basketball
Youngstown State Penguins
Youngstown State Penguins Basketball
Winthrop Eagles Basketball
Winthrop Eagles
North Carolina Asheville Bulldogs
North Carolina Asheville Bulldogs Basketball
UNLV Rebels
UNLV Rebels Football
Illinois Fighting Illini Football
Miami (OH) Redhawks Hockey
Arizona State Sun Devils Hockey
George Mason Patriots Basketball
George Mason Patriots
Never Forget Tribute Classic
Pittsburgh Panthers Basketball
Villanova Wildcats
Villanova Wildcats Basketball
Morgan State Bears Basketball
Akron Zips
Akron Zips Football
Georgia State Panthers Football
Georgia State Panthers
Princeton Tigers
Princeton Tigers Hockey
Cleveland State Vikings
Cleveland State Vikings Basketball
Western Illinois Leathernecks
Western Illinois Leathernecks Basketball
Norfolk State Spartans Basketball
Norfolk State Spartans
North Carolina Central Eagles Women's Basketball
Eastern Michigan Eagles Women's Basketball
Bentley Falcons Hockey
Bentley Falcons
Canisius Golden Griffins Hockey
UC Santa Barbara Gauchos
UC Santa Barbara Gauchos Basketball
Western Michigan Broncos Basketball
Oregon Ducks
Oregon Ducks Basketball
Oregon State Beavers Basketball
California Golden Bears
California Golden Bears Basketball
Stanford Cardinal Basketball
Colorado Buffaloes Basketball
Utah Utes Basketball
Arizona Wildcats Basketball
Arizona Wildcats
USC Trojans Basketball
Washington State Cougars Basketball
Washington Huskies Basketball
Maine Black Bears Women's Basketball
Maine Black Bears
Binghamton Bearcats Women's Basketball
Binghamton Bearcats
New Hampshire Wildcats Women's Basketball
New Hampshire Wildcats
Stony Brook Seawolves Women's Basketball
Hartford Hawks Women's Basketball
Hartford Hawks
UMBC Retrievers
UMBC Retrievers Women's Basketball
UMass Lowell River Hawks Women's Basketball
Albany Great Danes
Albany Great Danes Women's Basketball
Idaho State Bengals Basketball
Idaho State Bengals
Marquette Golden Eagles
Marquette Golden Eagles Basketball
Wisconsin - Green Bay Phoenix Basketball
Wisconsin - Green Bay Phoenix
Florida A&M Rattlers Basketball
Florida A&M Rattlers
Florida Atlantic Owls Football
Florida Atlantic Owls
Oops! We couldn't find exactly what you're looking for but we tried our best. Please try another search or look below for possible matches.
Newsletter Sign-up
Receive our latest exclusive offers and special deals
Company Information
About Us
Contact Us
Sell Tickets
Call Us: 1-800-318-2220
© Copyright Onlineseats-Ticket Broker 2016


text:
|Post Trn TipPost Trn Tip
|Post Stn TipPost Stn Tip
|Advanced Search
How to check if my RAC/WL position has improved?
1 Answers
Aug 05 2011 (4:47PM)
Entry# 515
How to check if my RAC/WL position has improved?
Aug 05 2011 (4:46PM)
Blog Post# 215514-0
ThE BoSs*^~ Added by: WDP4 20065 Aug 05 2011 (4:47PM)
Q. How To Check If The RAC And WL Position Has Improved???
Ans. Many a times the passengers who have purchased RAC or WL tickets are always in dilemma to know that whether their RAC and WL position has improved or not. So now Indian Railways have launched certain helpful services that will assist such people to find whether or not their RAC or WL position has improved. They can assess this information from their home itself and will not have to run to any other place.
Website service


text:
No Offers Available
Flat 3% OFF on Hotels Worldwide + Extra 2.5% Cashback from CouponRaja
View more T&C
Login to avail this Special Offer
Get 5% Cashback
paying through PayUmoney at Bookmyshow.
This is a Onetime Couponso a secret code will be generated for your purchase
Signup/Login to get this code in your mailbox.
Hurry only few codes remain!
Book now & Save 10% OFF the Flexi Rate in FuramaXclusive Villas & Spa, Ubud, Bali + Extra 3% Cashback from CouponRaja
Flat 25% OFF on booking of International Hotels worth Rs. 3000 + Extra Rs. 42.5 Cashback from CouponRaja
Extra 6% OFF on already Discounted Hotels + Extra 3% Cashback from CouponRaja
Upto 35% OFF on Weekend hotels in New York
Upto 15% OFF at Admiral Suites,Bangkok + Extra 3% Cashback from CouponRaja
Flat 10% OFF on Room & Breakfast Rates at Shama Heda Apartments,Hangzhou,China + Extra 3% Cashback from CouponRaja
Get Upto 2.5% Cashback from Us every time you shop at EasyToBook !
Upto 80% OFF on Typical And Charming Room In Amsterdam with EasyToBook + Extra 2.5% Cashback from CouponRaja
For alerts on
Easytobook's latest
Join & Browse
Click through & Shop
Cashback gets Confirmed within 60-90 days
Get Paid
Our Apps
Follow Us


text:
SS Artemis
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
The SS Artemis was a 23rd century Federation colony ship.
Artemis was launched from Mars in 2274, on stardate 7678.43, on a colonization mission to planet Septimis Minor. The mission commander was Philip Peter Bryce, with Galen Pizzorno serving as Deputy Mission Director. Contact with the ship was lost on stardate 7780.85. Numerous searches by Starfleet failed to locate the transport or any trace of its crew and passengers.
The fate of the Artemis was finally revealed in 2366 after the Sheliak demanded Tau Cygna V be evacuated per the terms of the Treaty of Armens with the Federation. The starship USS Enterprise-D discoverd a Human settlement on the planet. The colonists were the descendants of the Artemis crew and passengers.
According to the colonists, the guidance system on the Artemis failed, sending it off course. Eventually, after finding the planet Tau Cygna V, the crew landed the ship on the world. (TNG: "The Ensigns of Command" okudagram)


text:
Product DescriptionSuperdry men s Rookie tank jacket. This simple jacket features zip and button fastening as well as a corduroy collar with a fleece lining. The jacket is finished with button cuffs, two front pockets with a Superdry logo patch on one pocket and also a Superdry International patch on one sleeve.
- Field jacket
- Without hood
- Button fastening
- 2 pockets
- No internal pockets
- 100% cotton
- Cool Iron
- Machine Wash 30°C
- Not suitable for dry clean
Care Instructions
- Care Instructions: Machine Wash 30°C
Buy & Collect - FREE (7 days a week)
Order before 9pm for collection in store from 12noon the NEXT DAY or on a day of your choice
(For Belfast and Dundrum please allow up to 48hrs for delivery.
Standard - £3.50 (Monday to Friday)
FREE on orders of £50 or more. Delivery within 3 - 5 working days.
Next Day - £6 (Monday to Sunday)
Order before 7pm for delivery the NEXT DAY
Next Evening - £8 (Monday to Sunday 6-10pm)
Selected postcodes only. Order before Midnight for delivery the following evening
Collect+ - £3.50 Order before 7pm for collection from a local store
Nominated Day - £6 (Monday to Sunday)
Same Day - £6 (Monday to Friday)
Selected postcodes only. Order by 12noon for delivery between 6-9pm.
Pre 9am - £8 (Monday to Saturday)
Selected postcodes only. Order by 9pm for delivery before 9am the following morning.
Ireland - £3.50
FREE on orders of £50 or more*. Delivery within 3 - 5 working days.
International - £6-£20
To over 150 countries, within 3 - 10 working days.
Please be aware that some international deliveries may incur local import taxes.
We hope you will love your new things but if you don't, you are welcome to return your items free of charge. Here's how to do it:
To a Store
Bring your items and proof of purchase into store within 28 days from the day your parcel arrives, for a full refund via the original payment method.
By Post
Please send your return by post or courier within 28 days from the day your parcel arrives for a full refund via the original payment method.
Paypal Refunds
You will need to return your goods by post, if PayPal was your original payment method and you would like the refund back to your account. If you make your return to a store, we will only able to give you a House of Fraser gift card to the same value. You'll still have 28 days to return.
International Returns
Please note: if you return your purchase to us from outside of the UK, it will be at your own risk. We cannot accept any responsibility for items lost or damaged in transit. It is your responsibility to pay any delivery charges, duties and taxes incurred to return your purchase.


text:
- Condition:
- New
- Item No.
- 220405
- Mfg Part No.
Honeywell MS9500 Voyager CG, Scanner, KBW Kit, MS9540, PS2&AT Cable, Power, Stand, Black
$ 134.63
Free Shipping | In Stock
Honeywell MS7120 ORBIT, Keyboard Wedge Kit - White
$ 234.55
Free Shipping | In Stock
Honeywell MS9520 Voyager, Keyboard Wedge Kit (PS/2 Cable, PS/2 to AT/XT Adapter & Stand) - Black
$ 125.89 Original Price$ 190.00
In Stock
Honeywell MS3780 Fusion, Scanner, USB-HID, Black, No Power Supply Needed, Stand, Cable:53-53235-N-3, All Manuals
$ 206.78
Free Shipping | In Stock
Motorola LS1203 USB PC Kit 7 Foot Straight Cable Stand Black
$ 108.85 Original Price$ 182.00
Free Shipping | In Stock
Product Information for Honeywell 4800IS, Complete Decode Green Aim,Scanner Only,Orange,RoHS
Highlights for Honeywell 4800IS, Complete Decode Green Aim,Scanner Only,Orange,RoHS
- Product Type:Handheld Bar Code Reader
- Connectivity Technology:Wired
Marketing Information
The 4800iSR Bar Code Reader is a 2D Area Imager, powered by Adaptus Imaging Technology 5.0, decodes faster, farther, and future-proofs your investment. This means employees spend less time trying to capture data, and more time creating a productive and cost effective work environment.
Whether the requirement is reading conventional linear bar codes or 2D matrix symbologies, the 4800iSR can capture them all today. If the application requires signature capture, OCR, or digital photography, the 4800iSR Bar Code Reader can do it. The advanced imaging optics software in the 4800i quickly and easily determines the image content and transfers it to the host system.
General Information
Physical Characteristics
Additional Information
Supported Interfaces:
Technical Information
2 Dimensional:
OCR Fonts:
Power Description
Environmental Conditions
Battery Information


text:
Fores Blogs
My blog is about my methods of sustainable woodland management. I use principles of continuous cover.. forestry to preserve and enhance the landscape and wildlife whilst also trying to earn a living from.. from it.
Owner: loghouseman
Listed in: Environment
Other Tags: Trees, Woodlands, Forests, Conservation, Timber
Deals, Reviews, Coupons, Coupon Codes, Giveaways & MORE!
Owner: FashionInTheForest
Listed in: Lifestyle
Friends of Urban Forests is dedicated to protecting and enhancing our urban forests for all to enjoy.. and benefit from.
Owner: SteveZemke
Listed in: Environment
Other Tags: urban forests, trees, green infrastructure, protecting habitat and environment, Seattle's urban forest
My tropical rainforest adventures covering islands, lakes, jungle, waterfalls and parks both in and.. outside Malaysia.
Owner: bandel4
Listed in: Outdoors
Other Tags: rainforest adventures, tropical jungle, jungle animals, tropical crafts, Malaysia waterfalls
All about rain forest,save energy,animals forest,rainforest,tropical forest and save earth
Owner: xxxxxxx
Listed in: Health
Other Tags: rainforest, save forest, forest, Tropical forest, Forest save
6. Foreseegame
Share your skill of prediction with foreseegame.com - India first ever gaming portal based on.. prediction and win some exhilarating rewards.
Owner: jitesh001
Listed in: Sports
Other Tags: cash prizes, foreseegame, online gaming, play and win, game
Digital Forest is new blog which is contains a lot information about blogs tips and tricks and.. business ideas
Owner: aadhavan
Listed in: Business
Consumers appear to be holding back on buying non-essential goods, and this could impact the.. economic recovery.
Owner: gloriasimmon
Listed in: Business
Other Tags: consumer confidence, consumer spending, economic recovery, financial crisis, jobs creation
Transformation of an urban Sydney backyard into a sustainable food forest.
Owner: Brad_Hamilton
Listed in: Home-garden
Other Tags: Permaculture, Sustainability, Enviroment, organic, Food


text:
New "super-sized" programming will help MBA students explore career tracks at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. Through a partnership with the school's Office of Development and Alumni Relations, the Office of Career Services now offers panel discussions, keynote speakers, mock interviews and networking during Smith Super Days.
Business leader, Navy veteran and Smith School benefactor Leo Van Munching Jr. '50 died on Feb. 14, 2016, at his home in Darien, Conn. He was 89. Van Munching Hall, home to the Robert H. Smith School of Business and the School of Public Policy, bears his name.
Bill McDermott is a fantastic storyteller with tremendous energy. The CEO of SAP enthralled an audience of students, alumni, faculty, and staff at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business with tales of his life experiences. From his first entrepreneurial venture, to his most memorable sale, to his an overhaul of the worst branch at Xerox, to what he learned from a terrible accident, McDermott had his audience on the edge if their seats.
François de Zamaróczy, Smith MBA candidate 2017, writes about the Pitch Dingman semifinals event last week. Pitch Dingman is the University of Maryland's only business competition exclusively for Terps.
The Center for Leadership, Innovation, and Change (CLIC) at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business hosted "The Business of You," a personal branding workshop for women in the Smith alumni and MBA community on Nov. 12, 2015. The workshop featured speakers Carolyn Covey Morris, Founder and CEO of QMobius Inc., a brand...
Executive MBA students took turns in the "Terp Tank," pitching their businesses to seasoned investors like on TV's "Shark Tank." The panel of five investors was impressed with the business ideas from the 16 teams and some of the pitches may lead to investments.
The fourth annual Smith School Business Summit will be Nov. 13, 2015, at the Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards.
The executive MBA program at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business has climbed into the top 10 in the Financial Times annual EMBA rankings. Smith appears at No. 7 among U.S. schools in the 2015 list, up from No. 11 the previous year.
The Smith School is working on three fronts to close the gender enrollment gap that persists in MBA programs worldwide, vice dean Joyce E.A. Russell said in a recent Maryland Public Television interview.
John W. Rogers, Jr., described by Black Enterprise as "one of the most powerful" African Americans on Wall Street, is the featured guest for the second Diversity Fireside Chat presented by the University of Maryland's Office of Community Engagement and Robert H. Smith School of Business. The event is from 12:30-2 p.m. Friday, Oct. 9, 2015 in the Tyser Auditorium, Van Munching Hall.


text:
Quinoa-Corn Salad
Cook 1/2 cup red quinoa as the label directs. Put 3 shucked ears of corn in a bowl with a few tablespoons of water; loosely cover and microwave until tender, about 3 minutes. Cool, then cut off the kernels. Toss the quinoa and corn with 1 chopped large heirloom tomato, 2 sliced scallions, 3 tablespoons each olive oil and lime juice, 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt and a pinch of cayenne.
Photograph by Antonis Achilleos
Recipe courtesy of Food Network Magazine
Cooking Tips
More Recipes and Ideas
Red Quinoa and Mango Salad
Recipe courtesy of Guy Fieri
Green Grape and Avocado Quinoa Salad
Recipe courtesy of Katie Lee
Quinoa and Herb Crusted Lamb
Recipe courtesy of Giada De Laurentiis


text:
Perforated Metal Sheet Wire Mesh China Taiwan Korea - Chinaprice: contact company for price
with various patterns mainly standard perforated patterns and
decorative patterns.
Custom designs available. Precise parameters guaranteed.
Hole Patterns including: Round; Rectangular hole; Square; Triangle; Diamond; Hexagonal; Cross; Slotted; and other patterns according to your drawings or application requirement.
Please indicate parameters below when you ask for a quotation:
hole pattern
sheet shape
sheet sizes
unique requirements
other information you regard helpful
Company Contact:
- Posted By: Anping Xufeng hardware wire mesh Co.,ltd
- Phone: 8603187710999
- Address: Taicheng Development District,The West of Anping C, Hengshui, China
- Email:
- Website: http://www.xufwiremesh.com
Published date: April 3, 2014 -
- Business Description: Anping Xufeng hardware wire mesh Co.,ltd was founded in the year 1986 in Anping,the famous wire mesh land of China.Anping Xufeng Hardware Wire Mesh Factory is one of the earliest manufactures of wire mesh in this area. we produce in accordance with ISO9001 international quality management system and have guaranteed the good quality of our products and our advantages in competition!
We mainly produce and export stainless steel wire mesh,mild steel wire cloth,insect screening,welded wire mesh,galvanized square woven wire mesh,hexagonal wire netting or chicken netting,other metal mesh including perforated metal,wire screening expanded metal and brass mesh and series metal wire products such as galvanized iron wire,black iron wire, stainless steel wire and pvc coated wire!
Related listings
Iron Wire Supplier Black Exporter China Anping IndiaWire Mesh - Anping Xufeng hardware wire mesh Co.,ltd - China - April 3, 2014 - contact company for price
We produce quality galvanized iron wire, black iron wire, in reel, coil or cut into U shape. For both weaving of iron wire mesh and export use. We hold specialization in providing a wide assortment of versatile and durable Galvanized Iron Wire. The o...
U Shape Iron Wire Exporter Mesh From China Korea TaiwanWire Mesh - Anping Xufeng hardware wire mesh Co.,ltd - China - April 3, 2014 - contact company for price
We are one of the recognized manufacturers and suppliers of an assortment of Industrial Weave Wire in India. Our range is manufactured using premium grades of metals and advanced production technology. These are also in accordance with required indus...
Chain Link Fence Wire Mesh From China Usa KoreaWire Mesh - Anping Xufeng hardware wire mesh Co.,ltd - China - April 2, 2014 - contact company for price
Material: Low carbon steel wire, stainless steel wire, aluminum alloy wire. Weaving: Woven diamond pattern provides strong, durable and flexible construction. The closely spaced diamond mesh construction gives your fence linear strength and springy t...
Safe Trade Tips
- Ask for business references and check them
- Use a payment method that offers better protection for all such as Letters of credit and verified professional escrow services. Avoid payments in advance such as money transfers
- Verify their business via their local Chamber of Commerce
- Search the internet using their website address, their business name, their phone and fax numbers, and their email addresses to see if you can find any feedback about them.
- Get to know more about scams to avoid: Internet Crime Complaint Center - International Financial Scams
- This site is never involved in any transaction, and does not handle payments, shipping, guarantee transactions, provide escrow services, or offer "buyer protection" or "seller certification"


text:
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off "Compatibility View".
Free shipping on all domestic orders
Team rider Yvonne Byers--@yvonzing taking a rip off a booster at Battle Ground skatepark! #yvonnebyers #spunk #bonzing #battlegroundskatepark


text: What are you most proud of? I'm glad that it actually turned out to be a pair of socks! It's this project that really brought home to me that I'm a kinesthetic learner, and that its easier for me to enter a project organically and trust in the process than it is for me to follow a pattern. What advice would you give someone starting this project? I'm hooked on two-at-a-time socks. If you've had any curiosity about this method, I encourage you to try it.


text:
OBM - Tours / Excursions
Online Booking Manager - Tours / Excursions can be used by any tour operator, travel agency, ticketing agency which offer services on daily basis. Using the Online Booking Manager - Tours / Excursions friendly fron-end, your guests can check availability and book instantly, thus closing a booking without having to wait for your reservations staff to confirm the reservation. Online Booking Manager - Tours / Excursions is a Commission Free system and will be only under your control. You can have your own state of the art, robust PHP/MySQL based real time reservation system installed on your own server/host.Visit publisher site: OBM - Tours / Excursions
Listing Details
- Version:
- 2.2
- Filed in:
Scripts / PHP / Scripts & Programs / Vertical Markets
- Submitted on:
- Last Updated:
- Jul 30, 2011
- Publisher:
- Online Booking Manager Other listings by this publisher
License & Pricing Information
- License Type:
- Commercial
- Price:
- Additional Info:
- lifetime license
- License Type:
- Commercial
- Price:
- Additional Info:
- one year license
Featured Marketplace Listings
Star rating system …
Easy to use star rating system for your website, by pasting 1…
ApPHP Business Directory …
ApPHP Business Directory is a classified script for business listings
Mini jQuery Image …
Fading XML jQuery Image Scroller Gallery & SlideShow.
PHP Power Geolocater
advanced whatismyip clone
Magento One Step …
Provide single page checkout for customers
Xtreme Reviews for …
This scripts allows you to create a review system, that can …
User ReviewsBe the first to review this listing!
Not yet reviewed by any member.... You can be the FIRST one to write a review for OBM - Tours / Excursions


text:
From my own interpretation of the tale of Thumbling ( Pollicino).
From the Series" Owls and Tales". Between dream and reality.
Acrylic colors and acrylic paste / details in relief) on artistic paper applied on MDF board.
IMAGE - 29 x 21 x 0,5 cm
FRAMED - 35,5 x 27 x 3,5 cm depth.
FRAME - Handmade, handpainted by me, one of a kind.
Signed on the front. Signed and dated on the back. Certificate of authenticity .Safe and professional packaging. Shipping with tracking number online.
If you purchase more than one painting, the shipping price will be adapted and the extra cost will be refunded.
acrylic colors and acrylic paste in relief on paper on MDF board.
Acrylic painting by Carlo Salomoni
Paintingby Carlo Salomoni
Mixed Media paintingby Carlo Salomoni
Mixed Media paintingby Carlo Salomoni
Acrylic paintingby Carlo Salomoni


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
December 16, 2008
IN THE MATTER OF OMNI RECYCLING OF WESTBURY, INC., RESPONDENT,v.TOWN OF OYSTER BAY ET AL., APPELLANTS.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the petition denied in the entirety.
It has long been recognized that public work contracts that require the exercise of specialized or technical skills, expertise or knowledge are not subject to the sealed, competitive bidding requirements under General Municipal Law § 103*fn1 (see e.g. People v Flagg (17 NY 584 [1858]) and may instead be awarded using the Request for Proposals (RFP) process set forth in General Municipal Law § 104-b. In May 2004, respondent Town of Oyster Bay passed a resolution authorizing the use of section 104-b procedures for the procurement of goods and services not subject to competitive bidding, and the Town's Department of Public Works issued an RFP for "Services for the Recycling of Newspaper, Mixed Paper and Corrugated Cardboard" and "Services for the Recycling of Commingled Glass, Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metal and Rigid Plastic Containers." Proposals were solicited from nine companies, which were eventually narrowed to petitioner Omni Recycling of Westbury, Inc. and respondent Giove Company. The Town obtained independent review of the two submissions by a consultant, conducted a public hearing and awarded the contract to Giove.
Omni then initiated this proceeding, arguing that the Town should have used the competitive bidding process under section 103. We conclude, however, that based on the description of the particular services to be rendered in the RFP, this recycling contract fell within the special skills exception to the "lowest responsible bidder" requirement of section 103 (1) and therefore was properly awarded using an RFP process consistent with the section 104-b procedures adopted by the Town.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition denied in the entirety, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us