Case law

Huntington Branch, National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Town of Huntington

668 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 9, 1987

proposal by a qualified developer. … To qualify for service by the Huntington Housing Authority, one had to have an income at or below 185% of the poverty level.

Leka v. Portuondo

76 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 30, 1999

The state appeals court decision rejecting petitioner’s claim, therefore, was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … established Federal law ....,’” because “when a state court does not articulate the rationale for its determination, a review of that court’s ‘application’ of clearly established federal law is not possible.”); Wright v.

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

222 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2002

Legal Standard for Remand A state court action may be removed to federal court “if it qualifies as a ‘dril action ... of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction ....’” Rivet v. … Agreement was entered into by Barr to avoid an unfavorable outcome on appeal. 5 While the owner of a valid patent does not have carte blanche to engage in any conduct it wishes and cannot assume that its patent will always immunize

Auwarter v. Donohue Paper Sales Corp. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

802 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1992

Clearly, no other Plan member was eligible for or sought a lump sum benefit under the terms of the Plan. … Ultimately, the cited regulations and Plan provisions apply only if the Plan is terminated within the first ten years after its establishment.

Overstock Book Company v. Barry

305 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 1969

“To redress the deprivation, under col- or of any state law, [or] statute * * of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States * * The organic law which authorizes the institution of a … Here, too, the alleged conduct complained of by the State is “hardcore” and clearly within the statute no matter how limited its construction. Id. 380 U. S. at 491-492, 85 S.Ct. 1116 .

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center Inc. v. Blass

882 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 2012

Here, the Plaintiff does not clearly articulate any one theory for recovery, but conflates several equitable doctrines. … The Second Circuit explained that under the emergency assistance doctrine, something less than an absolute duty will qualify.

Armstrong

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 31, 2025

An action is frivolous as a matter of law when, inter alia, it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” — that is, when it “lacks an arguable basis in law or a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face … provisions or federal statutes is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.”

London v. Nassau County Correctional Facility

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

Pauperis Application Upon review of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified … dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Ayala v. NYC Human Resources Administration

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

The Court’s obligation “to construe a pro se complaint liberally” and interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests continues to apply “[e]ven after Twombly” established the plausibility standard for assessing … (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 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Dacosta v. Tranchina

285 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 30, 2018

immunity. … Nonetheless, the Advisory Committee clearly meant their filings to qualify as mistakes under the Rule. Krupski v.

Watson v. United States

133 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2015

Thus, it ruled that plaintiff did not qualify as a “child” for purposes of section 320 of the INA, and could not obtain citizenship under that statute. See Denial of N-600 Application. … Generations Family Health Ctr., 723 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir.2013) (“To qualify for [equitable tolling,] the [plaintiff] must establish that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his [claim] on time, and that

Friedman v. Maspeth Federal Loan & Savings Ass'n

30 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 2014

Under RESPA, this letter constituted a qualified written request (QWR), obligating defendant to respond. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35 . … Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he, his daughter, and his son-in-law intended to share resources as a family without establishing a tenancy. 2.

Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. v. County of Suffolk

583 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 1984

As defendant points out, however, neither of these statutory provisions clearly preempts local legislation. … While supporting that proposition, this authority must be qualified, however.

Goodman v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management

881 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2012

The order entered by Judge Lindsay, reproduced in its entirety above, established a reasoned procedure to proceed with the deposition and clearly define the issues. … Deceptive, illegal or fraudulent activity simply cannot qualify for protection as a trade secret.

Matthias v. United States

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 31, 2020

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court retains authority to adjudicate a case. Makarova v. … Hiring and retention of the employees of an FQHC usually involve policy decisions that clearly fall within the scope of the discretionary function exception.

Anderson v. Miller

206 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 13, 2002

City of New York, 975 F.Supp. 206, 215 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (noting that “the United States Supreme Court [has] defined the limits of qualified immunity in essentially objective terms by focusing on the objective reasonableness … of the government official’s acts, assessed in respect to the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time that the official action was taken.”)

Powell v. N.Y. State Unified Court System

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

NYSCUS is an arm of New York State and is therefore entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.3 (See December 2018 Order (dismissing NYSUCS on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity).) … Given the December 2018 Order, the Second Circuit’s affirmance, the well-established law on this subject, and the failure of Plaintiff’s Response to address this immunity issue, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

373 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2005

Clearly, customary international law provides a "specific, universal and obligatory" norm against aiding and abetting that was well-established long before the Vietnam War. Br. … The evidence with respect to defendants Steinbrinck, Burkart, Kaletsch, and Terberger in our opinion, however, clearly established that there was in the instant case "clear and present danger" within the contemplation of

Anderson v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 18, 2024

Accordingly, Commender had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, and Commender is thus entitled to qualified immunity. Marcavage v. … To support a qualified immunity defense, “the defending officer need only show ‘arguable’ probable cause.” Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156, 162 (2d Cir. 2002).

Bacchus v. New York City Department of Education

137 F. Supp. 3d 214 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2015

As discussed above, her suspension and termination clearly qualify as adverse employment actions. … However, that provision clearly applies to notices of claim for tort actions. See N.Y. .Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(l).