Case law

Evelyn v. v. Kings County Hospital Center

819 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 1993

Actions to Enforce Statutory Rights: The Relevant Supreme Court Authority 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private cause of action against any person who under color of state law deprives another of “any rights, privileges, or immunities … But the features themselves, particularly § 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a)(15), are deemed too general to qualify as privately enforceable rights. Id. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 1370 .

Rosa v. National Westminster Bank

842 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 2, 1994

For a long period prior to any such complaint by the plaintiff, she clearly had punctuality and attendance problems. … Employing the three-part Title VII test, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by proving the following factors: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position for which she

Cullen v. New York State Civil Service Commission

435 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 27, 1977

Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, of course, creates a civil action for deprivation of “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by “person[s]” acting under color of state law. … An action certifiable under (b)(1) and (b)(2) is considered to qualify for (b)(3) treatment as well, Van Gemert v.

Neurological Sugery Practice of Long Island, PLLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 17, 2023

(§ 706(2)(B)); acting contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity (§ 706(2)(B)); acting in excess of statutory jurisdiction, or limitations (§ 706(2)(C)); and acting without observance of procedure … It claims that defendants have failed to require health plans to clearly state their understanding of whether a case is IDR eligible and an exact value of their Qualified Payment Amount (“QPA”)4 in the EOB.

Jewish Community Center v. Trumbull Insurance

957 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 22, 2013

But, making deliveries for his employer clearly would fall within the scope of his employment activities. … Thus, in this context, the JCC alone — and not Sanders — qualifies as the “insured.” .

Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. v. Taddeo

455 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2006

An employer cannot immunize itself from voiding the prior agreement, in the wake of a new employment relationship, simply by renewing unsuccessful efforts every few weeks or months to have the employee sign the new restrictive … Numerous courts have found that employee lists did not qualify as a trade secret under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Bijan Designer for Men v. Katzman, No. 96 Civ. 7345, 1997 WL 65717 , *6, 1997 U.S. Dist.

Phelan v. Torres

843 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 30, 2011

Moreover, even where a policy or practice is established, a plaintiff must establish “a direct causal link between [the] municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” City of Canton v. … Finally, the Appellate Division recently held that “the function of caring for children in need of foster care” may be deemed a “governmental function” for purposes of applying the New York governmental immunity defense,

Weir v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 14, 2023

These include Weir’s assertions that he had “established and passed the three-part test to qualify for [a] modification”; that his beliefs are “sincere, meaningful, and deeply held”; and … And the agency clearly exercises discretion as to requests for a modified oath.

Illiano v. Mineola Union Free School District

585 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 7, 2008

Thus, in order to state a valid claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the conduct in question deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and … Here, the individual Defendants’ alleged statement about the circumstances of the Plaintiffs discharge clearly implicate her in the improper performance of her duties. See Chiavarelli v.

Hernandez v. County of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2022

Mem. 13), and (2) there was arguable probable cause for the arrest and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity, (id. at 16–17). … to Plaintiff, are not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Ward v. Biden

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

“Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes … The complaint cannot proceed against these Defendants because these Defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.

Jose P. v. Ambach

557 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 24, 1983

Such futility has been established as the law of this case. Jose P., supra, 669 F.2d at 869-70 . … The language of the regulation clearly requires triennial evaluations which the City Defendants admittedly have not conducted.

Porter v. Toulon Jr.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 21, 2021

Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall be filed in the 21-CV-5120(JS)(ARL) action. … Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall be filed in the 21-CV-4037(JS)(ARL) action.

Viola

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 9, 2026

Even if Viola had not abandoned these claims, it is well-established that both SUNY and SBUH are immune from claims in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See Bamba v. Fenton, 758 F. … Viola fails to provide any authority supporting her contention that in order to qualify as a “vaccine” an intervention must provide “sterilizing immunity . . . against infection and transmission” rather than reducing the

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

86 F.R.D. 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 7, 1980

Accordingly, since it is undisputed that defendant neither has an office in New York nor is qualified to do business here and plaintiff has failed to point to activities which alone or taken together establish that defendant … On the other hand, plaintiff has clearly stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

United States v. Rivera

117 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 22, 2015

I respectfully suggest that whatever course the government chooses, it makes the choice clearly and discloses it fully to proffering defendants and their counsel. … This is intended to avoid a claim by the witness that his or her sentence was adversely influenced by the immunized testimony.”).

Porter v. Toulon Jr

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 21, 2021

Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall be filed in the 21-CV-5120(JS)(ARL) action. … Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall be filed in the 21-CV-4037(JS)(ARL) action.

Etuk

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 13, 2026

pauperis action when the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “To establish a claim under Title II [of the ADA], a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that []he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that []he was excluded from participation

Wilkinson v. New York State

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 22, 2019

Plaintiff was more qualified than Nancy Black, who was eventually chosen for the position. (Id.) … of [Congress’s] authority [to abrogate sovereign immunity].”).

Carlucci v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

646 F. Supp. 1486 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 1986

Square Bank, N.A., 616 F.Supp. 1418 (W.D.Okl. 1985), held that neither an engagement to perform one bank audit nor a series of related allegedly false and misleading communications made in the course of a single scheme qualified … As for the specialized equipment plaintiff purportedly purchased, this clearly cannot qualify as a franchise fee with relation to Owens-Corning, as there is no allegation that any of this equipment was purchased from Owens-Corning