Case law

Dominique v. Artus

25 F. Supp. 3d 321 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 17, 2014

Petitioner has failed to establish that the Second Department’s decision was either contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. … Dominique immunity solely to deter Petitioner's counsel from being able to question her as thoroughly as possible. (Tr. 1949-2016). .

Sanders v. Siano

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

, though not to establish the truth of any matter asserted in the decisions.” … Officer Siano also argues that he entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for him to seize Sanders’s clothing at the hospital. (Motion at 8–12.)

Weil v. Long Island Savings Bank, FSB

200 F.R.D. 164 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 7, 2001

A Adequacy of representation To meet the burden of showing adequate representation, the plaintiffs must establish two elements. … Counsel Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., is clearly qualified to represent adequately the class.

United States v. City of New York

731 F. Supp. 2d 291 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2010

Because the test questions do not measure the abilities required for the job of entry-level firefighter, the examination cannot distinguish between qualified and unqualified candidates, or even between more and less qualified … Cognitive abilities were tested using standard multiple choice questions with clearly defined right or wrong answers. (See, e.g., Exam 6019 (Def. Ex. A-1) (filed under seal) at Exam 035.)

McQueen v. City of New York

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

At the very least, the defendant officers would be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no “controlling authority” or “a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” that 5 In opposing defendants’ motion … clearly establishes a right to be issued a DAT as opposed to detained. See Liberian Cmty. Ass'n of Connecticut v. Lamont, 970 F.3d 174, 186 (2d Cir. 2020).

Maldonado v. Maldonado

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 2, 2020

Even more critical, a plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. … The provisions related to federal officers and federal court proceedings clearly do not apply to plaintiff's case.

DeCostanzo v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2022

Ct. at 2204 (“certain harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III. The most obvious are traditional tangible harms, such as physical harms . . ..”). … That GSK’s ad campaign did not reference their vaccine by the name Boostrix is of no consequence since the “Big Bad Cough” website clearly indicates GSK is the manufacturer. Id., ¶ 6.

Summa v. Hofstra University

715 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 2010

The Supreme Court further noted the “striking breadth” of this definition, which “stretches the meaning of ‘employee’ to cover some parties who might not qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency law … Under these circumstances, Judge Lindsay’s determination that conditional certification was proper cannot be labeled clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Rabin v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 9, 2024

“The doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims fall within an applicable waiver.” … b) Sovereign Immunity.

City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc.

703 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 2010

Also named as defendants are a group of eighteen mortgage loan trusts (the “Trusts”), established by Citigroup Mortgage. … A buyer with a high FICO score would likely qualify for a mortgage with a higher LTV ratio than a buyer who is less credit worthy.

Gurvey v. Garry

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

In 2001, Plaintiff established a Delaware company to hold certain intellectual property rights she was developing. (Id.) … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” (citation omitted)).

Marini v. Adamo

995 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2014

For the reasons set forth below, the Court disagrees. ■ The Court notes that, although defendants do not challenge Weinberg’s qualifications, Weinberg is clearly qualified to be an expert in rare coins. … The Court notes that Parrella is clearly qualified to testify as an expert in rare coins. Parrella has been working in the coin industry since college and formed a business buying and selling rare coins in 1974.

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

281 F.R.D. 108 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 26, 2012

It was further stated that “[t]his is so because while losses incurred on sales made following a partial corrective disclosure are clearly attributable to the alleged fraud, an analysis of net shares purchased and net funds … Metropolitan Water is “a defined benefit, single employer benefit plan established in 1931 under Article 13 of the Illinois Pension Code ... to provide disability and retirement benefits to qualified employees of the Metropolitan

Hope v. Cortines

872 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 5, 1995

Sept. 26, 1994) (quoting section 1415(f)’s exhaustion requirement and stating that the plaintiffs’ ADA, Section 1983 and other claims “are clearly pre-empted by § 1415(f)”). … Section 12132 of the ADA provides: Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of

United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.

677 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 22, 1987

defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established … District Judges that an exclusion for a complex case “should reasonably be related to the actual needs of the case,” id. at 277 , the exclusion in this case, as evidenced by the recital of the above facts, is more than clearly

Schulz v. Marshall

528 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 2007

“‘Clearly established Federal law’ means ‘the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.’” Green v. … “An ineffective assistance claim asserted in a habeas petition is analyzed under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause of AEDPA because it is ‘past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as clearly established

Clark-James

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

By order dated August 18, 2025, this Court dismissed the Judicial Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to judicial immunity. (Order, Aug. 18, 2025.) … Jan. 6, 2015) (“[C]ourts may deny leave to replead where amendment qualifies as futile.”) (quoting Herbert v. Delta Airlines, 2014 WL 4923100, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (citing Cuoco v.

Kennedy v. Engel

348 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 1972

view of his education and experience, the agreement he signed on August 10, 1971, his failure to appear at the hearing or to call the Superintendent as a witness, and the provisions of MARAD Order No. 181 which delineate clearly … In addition, MARAD Order No. 116 (June 24, 1969), establishing the Tenure Committee, provides in § 3.07: “All deliberations and reports of the Committees shall be administratively restricted in accordance with provisions

Gribbin v. New York State Unified Court System

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2020

“Some courts have found that a ‘Title II claimant [must] establish the violation of a fundamental right’ in order to abrogate sovereign immunity, while others have concluded that a ‘Title II violation must be motivated … Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she was prevented from commencing an action, but merely that “the state matrimonial court refused to accept key legal filings because, due to her qualified disability, she was unable

Julien v. Venditty

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2020

Because I find that the plaintiff's claims are precluded, I do not reach the issue of whether the defendant is protected by qualified immunity. See Rasmussen v. City of New York, 766 F. … Supp. 2d 399, 415 n.9 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Qualified immunity requires a two step inquiry, in either order, one step of which is the determination of whether issues exist that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been