Case law

Aikens v. Cerrito

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 2019

Second, the conduct “must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. … that Plaintiff may be able to challenge the Fund’s withholding of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., depending on the requirements of ERISA plan to qualify

Nachmenson v. New York State Department of Tax and Finance

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 28, 2020

Moreover, a plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. … to be sued or Congress has created an exception to sovereign immunity.

United States v. Sam Goody, Inc.

506 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 8, 1981

But we need not limit it to conversion, and find that such conduct qualifies equally as a stealing or a taking by fraud, as the above case law has construed those terms. … The propriety of the surreptitious recording of the Stolon statement by a confidential informant equipped with a concealed body recorder can similarly be established briefly.

Amendola v. Henderson

182 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 6, 2001

In support of the motion, Defendant argues: (1) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie claim for disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act; (2) plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of a … requisite long-term- impact to qualify as a substantially limiting disability). *276 2.

Gentile v. Potter

509 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 6, 2007

To establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is handicapped or disabled under the Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform his job; (3) he suffered an adverse employment … Therefore, Gentile cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation for this claim. ii.

Keita v. Fema

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 2021

Sovereign immunity generally makes the United States (i.e., FEMA3) absolutely immune from suit. … In addition, there may be other grounds to establish sovereign immunity.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Ulico Casualty Co.

387 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 13, 2005

However, Judge Pohorelsky clearly accepted this interpretation of the Policy, at least for the purposes of his discussion, in concluding that “the La Fata action does not allege any breaches of fiduciary duties by the trustees … The trouble for the plaintiffs is that, far from threatening the tax-qualified status of the Plan, the 1999 amendments actually ensured the tax-qualified status of the Plan going forward and helped persuade the IRS to grant

In Re Duratech Industries, Inc.

241 B.R. 283 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 1999

STANDARD OF REVIEW GOVERNING BANKRUPTCY APPEALS Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure establishes the standard governing a district court’s review of a bankruptcy judge’s order. … According to this standard, while a bankruptcy judge’s factual findings may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, a bankruptcy judge’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

Welch v. United Parcel Service Inc.

871 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2012

As to Whether the Evidence Established Welch is a Qualified Individual under NYSHRL UPS argues that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate at trial that he was a “qualified individual” under the terms of the NYSHRL. … At trial, Welch had the burden to establish that: (1) the Defendant was subject to the NYSHRL; (2) that he was disabled within the meaning of this law; (3) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of

Vlahopoulos v. Roslyn Union Free School District

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants also contend that Defendant Roth is entitled to qualified immunity, however, since the Court has found that no violation of the Fourth Amendment has … occurred, the Court does not reach Defendants’ argument regarding qualified immunity. .

Otero v. Town of Southampton

194 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2002

Plaintiff Failed To Establish His Claim Of Excessive Force Excessive force claims arising out of an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. Graham v. … Had this Court found that the perp walk was staged, Police Officer Mazzio nonetheless would have enjoyed qualified immunity from said claim because the unconstitutionality of staged perp walks was not "clearly established

Mingo v. United States

274 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2003

Because the FTCA constitutes a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, the statutory requirements for pursuing a claim must be adhered to strictly. Id. at 841; Schunk v. … Under well-established New York law, the use of an officer’s off-duty weapon “is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the officer’s wrongdoing was undertaken within the scope of his employment.” Longin v.

Russell v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

921 F. Supp. 143 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 1996

To establish a prima facie case alleging a violation of section 510 of ERISA, plaintiff merely has to plead that he or she was qualified for a pension as a beneficiary of a pension plan in which he or she belonged and that … Regan, 777 F.2d 825, 836 (2d Cir.1985), modified, 793 F.2d 457 (2d Cir.1986), and “together they comprise ‘a form of restitution, clearly an equitable remedy.’ ” Hodges v.

Cartelli v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 17, 2019

immunity as to those claims. … Even if a state actor deprives an individual of his constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields a governmental official from civil liability “if he can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause

Klem v. Popular Ford Sales, Inc.

975 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 1997

“Disabilities” Under the ADA In order to establish the first element of her prima facie case — i.e., that she is a “qualified individual with a disability” — Klem must *200 show that her headache constituted a “disability … She clearly engaged in a protected activity: filing a complaint with the EEOC.

United States v. Luc-Thirion

501 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 23, 1980

Thus, Marchesano could clearly detect any evidence of perspiration and could witness facial contortions which might indicate nervousness. … Further, the record clearly indicates that the request to remove the defendant’s shirt was supported by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Nieves, supra.

United States v. Mabie

580 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 24, 1984

Facts The credible evidence adduced by the Government at the suppression hearing established the following facts: On August 24, 1983, at approximately 6:30 p.m., defendant arrived at JFK International Airport aboard Avianca … Clearly, therefore, neither this passage nor any other passage in the Miranda opinion can sensibly be read to create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject

Orr v. Jackson

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2019

Second, Defendants contend that the arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted based on, at a minimum, arguable probable cause. (Id. at 13-15.) … Having established that the officers had probable cause, the court need not reach Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. Also, because Plaintiff's false arrest claim fails, her due process claim also fails.

(PC) Haapaniemi v. Department of Motor Vehicles

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2023

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Conyers v. … Hence, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction to preside over this action.

Cornett v. Northrop Grumman Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 6, 2020

Navy, and even if not, their use and storage of chemicals does not qualify as “abnormally dangerous activity.” … While the federal government may be immune from strict liability claims based on ultrahazardous activity, see Laird v. Nelms, 406 U.S. 797 (1972) it is unclear whether that immunity extends to Defendants.