Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Alexander Alhovsky v. City of New York, et al.

Date: 11-20-2009

Case Number: 1:07-cv-07628-CM

Judge: Colleen McMahon

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert Keith Erlanger, Erlanger Law Firm, P.L.L.C., New York, New York

Defendant's Attorney: Jeffrey Anthony Dougherty, New York City Law Department, New York, New York

Description:

Alexander Alhovsky sued Officer Thomas Ryan and others on a civil rights violation theory under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that he sustained physical and emotional injuries for being arrested without probable cause for leaving a a divice for inflating balloons in a Starbucks in 2006. Alhovsky, who is a professional clown, left the device in the Starbucks. Store employees called the New York Police Department when they found the device. The bomb squad determined it was harmless, but set up surveillance. When Alhovsky returned to the store he was arrested. A search of his apartment produced no evidence of wrongdoing and he was released. No charges were ever filed against him.

Defendants denied wrongdoing.

Outcome:

Defendants' verdict.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Alexander Alhovsky v. City of New York, et al.?

The outcome was: Defendants' verdict.

Which court heard Alexander Alhovsky v. City of New York, et al.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York County, NY. The presiding judge was Colleen McMahon.

Who were the attorneys in Alexander Alhovsky v. City of New York, et al.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Robert Keith Erlanger, Erlanger Law Firm, P.L.L.C., New York, New York. Defendant's attorney: Jeffrey Anthony Dougherty, New York City Law Department, New York, New York.

When was Alexander Alhovsky v. City of New York, et al. decided?

This case was decided on November 20, 2009.