
    Alberto Rivera BEY, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, William J. Fraser, individually and as Commissioner for the New York City Department of Corrections, Michael Caruso, individually and as Inspector General of the New York City Department of Investigation, Richard S. Mezan, as Executor of the Estate of the late Edward Kurinsky, individually and as Commissioner of Investigation for the City of New York, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Estate of the late Edward Kurinsky, individually and as Commissioner of Investigation for the City of New York, Rosemarie Maldonado, individually and as Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, Defendants.
    
    Nos. 13-3709, 13-3746.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2014.
    Irene Donna Thomas, Thomas & Associates, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-AppelleeCross-Appellant.
    Maxwell Douglas Leighton, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, Larry A. Sonnenshein, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Mordecai Newman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief), for Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff cross-appeals from an amended judgment entered following trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.).

Specifically, Plaintiff challenges (1) the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages awarded by the jury, (2) the sufficiency of the back pay award, and (3) the district court’s denial of further equitable or injunctive relief. See Bey v. City of New York, Nos. 99 Civ. 3873, 01 Civ. 9406 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2013). For the reasons stated in our Summary Order in the related appeal of Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733, we REVERSE the district court’s vacatur of the punitive damages, but otherwise AFFIRM the Amended Judgment of the district court.

Defendants appeal in this action simply to reserve the issue of attorney’s fees pending resolution of the related appeal in Bey v. City of New York, No. 13-3733. Given our resolution of that action, Defendants’ appeal in this case is DISMISSED as moot.  