Case law

Paulette v. Suffolk County 5th Precinct Police Department

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 18, 2022

Upon review of the declaration accompanying Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. … punctuation, and grammar have not been corrected or noted. 2 pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified

Walter v. Queens Coll.

390 F. Supp. 3d 382 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 3, 2019

Congress did not waive the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit when it enacted section 1983. Quern v. … However, the fact that the College is state-run is only a qualifier, it is not the institution's defining feature, and as a result, Walter's allegations do not rise to the level of "uniquely governmental" conduct.

Billy v. Cunningham

947 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 3, 2013

Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 424 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (“All qualified citizens have a civic right, of course, to serve as jurors____”); Thiel v. So. Pac. … The state court’s adjudication did not “result[ ] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Butler v. Suffolk County

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2025

Bick’s report involves his independent expert opinion and is clearly permissible.” (Id.) … Moreover, Plaintiffs would have the Court reject the County’s immunity argument since Second Circuit precedent is clear: “[T]here is no immunity defense, either qualified or absolute

United States v. One Etched Ivory Tusk of African Elephant

871 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 2012

However, nothing in § 17.40(e) suggests that a specimen that qualifies for importation under its terms need not meet the general rules established in § 17.8. … These opinions cohere with the test that Bigio establishes: where the United States Government has brought suit, clearly the court need not worry that it will intrude into an area that the execu *143 tive branch does not

Pothen v. Stony Brook University

211 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2016

“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he suffered an adverse … If it had, the Court would dismiss such a claim on the sovereign immunity grounds set forth in the March 21, 2014 Order.

Fox v. State University of New York

686 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2010

In a decision dated June 7, 2006, the Court dismissed the ADEA and ADA Title I claims on sovereign immunity grounds, but allowed the plaintiff to proceed on her ADA Title II claims, which included both discrimination and … To establish a prima facie case of employment retaliation, the plaintiff must establish that (1) she “engaged in protected activity” (2) that her employer “was aware of this activity” (3) that her employer “took adverse action

Filler v. Port Washington Union Free School District

436 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 25, 1977

services and facilities to such children by the school district where such nonpublic school is located, for a consideration to be agreed upon between the school authorities of such districts, subject to the approval of the qualified … Our decisions have sought to establish principles that preserve the cherished safeguard of the Establishment Clause without resort to blind absolutism.

Chaohui Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc.

210 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Plaintiffs have not established that defendants’ records were falsified. … The district judge must consider any timely objections “and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

Volkova

District Court, E.D. New York · May 20, 2026

By choosing February 24, 2022, as the starting date, Congress clearly intended to provide assistance to Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion that had begun two days earlier. … The AUSAA was clearly a response to an emergency and, as explained above, there is no reason to think that Congress did not intend to give “comprehensive effect” to its response.

Stoner v. Miller

377 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 1974

It is uncontradicted that counsel are well qualified and that the litigants are not involved in a collusive suit. The Court after reviewing all of the factors rules that this suit is a proper class action. … A reading of the ordinance indicates clearly that it is exclusionary in nature, and, therefore, a restriction on a citizen’s right to travel. In Cole v.

Goodwine v. Government

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 10, 2022

“The doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that [his] claims fall within an applicable waiver.” Makarova v. … Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for the waiver of sovereign immunity and the Court can think of none. See Bank v. Wolfe, No. 19-CV-441, 2020 WL 4748320, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.

Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. Hercules Construction Corp.

23 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 1998

Noting that it is a rare instance in which a preliminary agreement clearly manifests such intention as to create a binding obligation, id., nonetheless, as established by Judge Leval, *295 there are two categories of binding … As described supra, Cleveland did not take actions sufficient to qualify as partial performance pursuant to the terms of the purported agreement, and clearly forfeiture did not occur.

Mitchell v. Century 21 Rustic Realty

233 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 29, 2002

In order to establish a prima facie case' of discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he applied for and was qualified to rent or purchase the housing; (3) that he was … The plaintiffs have not set forth facts establishing a case under either statute.

U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J&K, LLC

335 F. Supp. 3d 321 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 14, 2018

The Policy The parties dispute whether Image qualifies as an additional insured under the Policy. … The parties agree that Image must qualify as an additional insured in order to be covered by the Policy. i.

J. Baranello & Sons v. Hausmann Industries, Inc.

571 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 9, 1983

They exchanged letters setting forth the price and schedule of delivery and establishing the FDC architect’s approval of defendant’s shop drawings as a condition of their contract. … Moreover, even if the term survived, it does not preclude plaintiff’s recovery: Testimony adduced at trial established that the architect’s April 4th approval, although qualified, was sufficient to satisfy the condition.

Goldberg v. UBS AG

660 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 2009

The statute is clearly inapplicable. … But plaintiffs have clearly pled that the defendant was aware of the terroristic purposes of ASP, Tulkarem Zakat and Hamas.

In Re" Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation

580 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 21, 1984

For, as the Federal Government has the exclusive power to establish and define the relationship by virtue of its military powers, equally clearly it has power in execution of the same functions to protect the relation once … Williams, 369 A.2d 669 (Del.1976) (parental immunity), N.C.Gen.

Colaizzo v. Saks fifth Ave

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2024

The determination of whether an applicant qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court. DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. … However, it is well-established that Section 1983 “excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Hardy-Graham v. Southampton Police Department

District Court, E.D. New York · May 15, 2020

Upon review of the Long Form in forma pauperis application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified, by his financial status, to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. … Under the now well-established Iqbal/Twombly standard, a complaint satisfies Rule 8 only if it contains enough allegations of fact to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.”