
    Therese LORE, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, City of Syracuse Police Department; Chief of Police John Falge in his individual and official capacity; First Deputy Chief Daniel Boyle in his individual and official capacity; Deputy Chief Robert Tassone in his individual and official capacity; City of Syracuse Mayor Roy Bernardi in his individual and official capacity; Lieutenant Mike Rathbun in his individual and official capacity; Captain Mike Kerwin in his individual and official capacity; Rick Guy, City Corporation Counsel, in his individual and official capacity; Michael Lemm, in his individual and official capacity; John Doe, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Cross-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-3772-cv, 09-4206-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 2, 2012.
    A.J. Bosman, Esq. Law Office of A.J. Bosnian, Esq., Rome, NY for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
    Gabrielle Mardany Hope, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendants-Cross-Appellee.
    Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROBERT D. SACK, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   In our February 2, 2012, 670 F.3d 127, opinion (“Opinion”) in the above-captioned appeal, this Court set forth (1) its affir-mance of certain parts of the district court’s judgment, (2) its vacatur of certain other parts of the judgment, and (3) its conditional rulings on the remaining parts of the judgment, dependent on certain elections to be made by plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant (“Plaintiff’) in this Court and on remand in the district court.

Plaintiff has timely elected, in accordance with Paragraph (C) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion, to withdraw so much of her appeal as challenged the summary dismissal of her claims under the New York Human Rights Law with respect to her removal from the position of public information officer in the defendant-cross-appellee police department.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as set forth in Paragraphs (A), (B), (D), and (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion; and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with Parts IV and V of the Opinion and Paragraphs (B), (D), and (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.  