| Solomon v Amazon.com, Inc. |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 00929 [235 AD3d 512] |
| February 18, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| David Solomon, Appellant, v Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
David Solomon, appellant pro se.
The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, White Plains (Carmen A. Nicolaou of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2022, which granted the motion of defendants The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, Amazon.com, Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Carmen Nicolaou, individually and as lawyer employed by The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, and Jay Warren, individually (WFM/Chartwell defendants) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 26, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied as moot the following nine motions brought by plaintiff: a motion to strike defendants' reply on their motion to dismiss, two motions to find defendants guilty of perjury, a motion to deny defendants' cross-motion for sanctions, a motion to add a case citation to the prior motion to strike, a motion to transfer the case to the Appellate Division, a motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126, a motion to compel defendants to admit transfer to the Appellate Division, and a motion to reverse plaintiff's suspension from the practice of law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly dismissed the complaint as against the WFM/Chartwell defendants. Plaintiff purports to assert a claim under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 for deprivation of his constitutional rights to cross-examine the underlying anonymous complainants in a discrimination proceeding he initiated with the New York State Division of Human Rights and to "a judgment that is not based entirely on the[ir] hearsay accusations." This claim must fail because plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that any such rights (to the extent they exist) were violated here, that the WFM/Chartwell defendants acted under color of state law, or the existence of a conspiracy involving these defendants.
Having dismissed the complaint as against the WFM/Chartwell defendants, the motion court properly denied plaintiff's various motions aimed at those defendants as moot. Concur—Kern, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, JJ.