Case law

Brezler v. Mills

220 F. Supp. 3d 303 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 6, 2016

Section 1181 confers on the Navy the authority to establish its own specific procedures for implementing the BOI process. … Intramilitary Immunity Doctrine The government contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the APA because the intramilitary immunity doctrine bars plaintiffs claims.

Penberg v. HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT

823 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 17, 2011

Plaintiffs termination from his position in 2007 clearly constitutes an adverse employment action. … In order to establish a prima facie case of interference with plaintiffs exercise of FMLA rights, plaintiff must establish that: 1) he is an eligible employee; 2) defendant qualifies as an employer under the FMLA; 3) plaintiff

Caulfield v. Board of Ed. of City of New York

486 F. Supp. 862 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 1979

It is further understood that the commitment made herein does not establish quotas. … What the Board did was to let the teachers themselves establish the discriminatory process. . . .

Davis v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2021

Upon review, the Court finds that plaintiff is qualified by her financial position to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. … Any amended complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint”, shall bear the same docket number as this Order, 20-CV-1480, and shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

Bramble v. Hynes

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2024

Bramble argues that Lubin’s motion establishes that the ADAs “intentionally presented legally insufficient evidence before a Grand Jury to secure an invalid indictment” against the two of them … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).

Lew Lieberbaum & Co., Inc. v. Randle

85 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 8, 2000

This would certainly suffice to establish Neuhaus’ meaningful participation in the events that caused the Randles’ losses, or, at the very least, prevent Neuhaus from proving the essential element of “good faith” to establish … At the least, the Florida administrative finding would support a cause of action for negligent supervision *128 against Petitioners Lew and Lieberbaum, as the administrative citation clearly establishes that Lew and Lieberbaum

Holmes v. Groder

District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2024

“It is well-established that New York [State] has not consented to § 1983 suits in federal court . . . and that § 1983 was not intended to override a state’s sovereign immunity.” Mamot v. Board of Regents, 367 F. … Any such claims shall be alleged by filing a “Fourth Amended Complaint,” clearly labeled as such, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

Pittman v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead

49 F. Supp. 3d 307 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2014

“Of importance, even if probable cause to arrest is ultimately found not to have existed, an arresting officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity from a suit for damages if he or she can establish an ‘arguable probable … established law and the information the ... officers possessed.”).

Gortat v. Capala Bros.

257 F.R.D. 353 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 5, 2009

The parties here clearly dispute when and where the foremen and laborers were expected to report to work. … To the contrary, Carter clearly implies that no single factor alone is dispositive of the economic reality determination.

Muset v. Ishimaru

783 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2011

The Court clearly has the authority to hear Muset’s due process claim. … Nothing in the record suggests that the leveling of Muset’s reprimand did not meet this standard, even assuming it qualifies as a “sanction.”

United States v. Incorporated Village of Island Park

888 F. Supp. 419 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 1995

The government has established both. … Although this clearly does not establish that McGann knew that his mother used her influence, it creates a material issue of fact as to whether the McGanns knowingly participated in the pre-selection scheme. (4)DeLessio’s

Babcock Ex Rel. Computer Management Sciences, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc.

186 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2002

“ERISA established a comprehensive federal statutory program intended to control abuses associated with pension benefit plans.” Id. … During the 90 day period after the close of each Plan Year in his Qualified Election Period (as defined below), a Qualified Participant (as defined below) may elect, modify or revoke an election, or make a new election, to

Heba v. New York State Division of Parole

537 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 11, 2007

Application Plaintiff argues that he has established a prima facie case. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs third through sixth claims must be dismissed because they are all state and common law claims from which the Division has Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Mann v. Laroque

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2024

LEGAL STANDARDS The Second Circuit has established a two-step procedure wherein the district court first considers whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and then … Any amended complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall bear the same docket number as this Order, 23-CV-8237(GRB)(AYS).

Lewis v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 6, 2023

The absolute judicial immunity of the court and its members “is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice,” nor can a judge “be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error . . . or was in excess … Foreclosure actions are clearly within the ambit of his judicial function. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v.

Scelza v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2023

LEGAL STANDARDS The Second Circuit has established a two-step procedure wherein the district court first considers whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and then … Any amended complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall bear the same docket number as this Order, 23-CV- 8106(GRB)(JMW).

Ehrich v. I.C. System, Inc.

681 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2010

Thus, here, although plaintiffs themselves were not deprived of notice by the Spanish sentence, their mere receipt of a debt collection letter that potentially violated the FDCPA is sufficient to establish standing. … Instead, the letter left the Spanish-speaker uncertain as to his or her rights, failing to clearly state the available options.

Hough

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 2026

LEGAL STANDARDS The Second Circuit has established a two-step procedure wherein the district court first considers whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status and then considers the merits … Section 1983 “creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993).

Jacobs v. Surrogate's Court, Queens County and Kings County

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 24, 2025

An action is frivolous when “either (1) ‘the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy;’ or (2) ‘the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory … May 18, 2010) (summary order) (noting that state courts, as arms of the State, are immunized from suit); see also N.Y. CONST. art. 6, § 1 (establishing the unified court system).

Dickerson v. Dickerson

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 21, 2023

Instead, she is entitled to immunity because she “clearly ha[s] jurisdiction over cases like” Brandon’s, even if she ultimately does “not have jurisdiction over [Brandon’s] case itself … “[I]t is well-established,” however, “that court-appointed attorneys performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel . . . do not act ‘under color of state law’ and therefore are not subject to suit under 42