Case law

Caputo v. Copiague Union Free School District

218 F. Supp. 3d 186 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2016

The notice of claim explicitly named the District (“Copiague Public Schools” and the “Board of Education”). … It is well settled that compliance with Education Law § 3813 is a condition precedent to commencement of a tort action against a school board, its members or employees. P.J. Panzeca, Inc. v.

Kirkland v. Security Captain Cruz 1197

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2025

See Preiser v. … Queens County District Attorney, No. 18-CV-5373 (MKB), 2020 WL 837357, at *4 (Feb. 20, 2020) (citing Geer v. Brown, No. 14-CV-6172 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 4042166, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.

Maggiolo v. The Mineola

44 F. 143 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 28, 1890

In Italy, he earned about SI 6 per month and his board. Before the accident, he was a sound man. Since the accident, he sutlers pain, and seems to be permanently incapacitated, for heavy work. … If the method of determining the damages adopted in the case of Miller v. The W. G.

McQueen v. Tomins

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 2025

See Tindall v. Poultney High Sch. Dist., 414 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 2005); Iannaccone v. … Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

Bulldog Electric Products Co. v. Cole Electric Products Co.

57 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 3, 1944

1942, for the infringement of the following patents: Nos. 2,041,675, 2,059,986, 2,059,988, Reissue No. 20,436, 2,230,423, 2,251,403, 2,251,404, 2,264,075, which relate to bus duct equipment, and No. 2,103,325 for panel board … See Milwaukee Gas Specialty Company v. Mercoid Corporation, 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 589 ; Penn General Casualty Company v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189 , 55 S.Ct. 386 , 79 L.Ed. 850 . Settle order on notice.

Haselden v. United States

24 F.2d 529 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 28, 1927

Counsel for libelants have thoroughly briefed these eases in their endeavor to distinguish them from the decision of this court in O’Neal v. … caused by a “public vessel of the United States,” as those words are used in the statute, and for all the reasons stated in the opinion in O’Neal v.

Lotze v. Hoke

654 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 1987

Marshall v. Loneberger, 459 U.S. 422, 436 , 103 S.Ct. 843, 851 , 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983); Harned v. Henderson, 588 F.2d 12, 17 (2d Cir.1978); Ames v. New York State Board of Parole, 593 F.Supp. 972, 974 (E.D.N.Y.1984). … See Harned v. Henderson, supra; Caputo v. Henderson, 541 F.2d 979 (2d Cir.1976); Ames v. New York State Board of Parole, supra at 974.

Arthur Tickle Engineering Works, Inc. v. Oil Tank Cleaning Corp.

214 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 1963

Harris v. Standard Accident and Insurance Company, 297 F.2d 627 (2d Cir., 1961); Friedman v. Typhoon Air Conditioning Co., 205 F.Supp. 22 (E.D.N.Y.1962). … When Oil Tank came on board on October 27th, Michelson, its supervisor on board, asked Bogaard, Tickle’s supervisor on board, if he had any men on board to remove the manhole covers.

Nelson v. Phoenix Chemical Works

17 F. Cas. 1336 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 15, 1873

The proposition, that it is the duty of a wharfinger to give information gs to inequalities in the surface of the bottom, when that is material to the safety of a vessel about to moor at his wharf, — Sawyer v. … But it is insisted that inasmuch as the evidence shows that the wharfinger, who was the consignee of the cargo on board this vessel, directed the master to place his vessel in the berth she took, without informing him that

United States v. Carney

796 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 19, 1992

Wurdemann, 663 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam); United States v. Femon, 640 F.2d 609, 612 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Podell, 572 F.2d 31 , 35 n. 7 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. … United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir.1984); see also Sanderford v. Prudential Ins.

In re Cayne Const. Co.

58 F.2d 664 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 1932

Y., to one David Brown-man. … C.) 22 F.(2d) 426 ; Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Selcow (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 78 .

Angrisani v. City of New York

639 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 18, 1986

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 572 , 92 S.Ct. at 2706 . … Cleveland Board of Education v.

Wharton v. Roth

263 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 22, 1964

The defendants Smith and Rockwell appear not to have attended any meetings of the TCA board of directors held in this District. *924 “ * * * the complaint sufficiently alleges their connection with and participation in the … See Thiele v. Shields, 131 F.Supp. 416, 420 (S.D.N.Y.1955)."

Flannery, Guinan & Moran, Inc. v. New York Cent. R.

50 F.2d 269 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 29, 1928

issue is raised as to the character of the charter, but, even if the allegations of the libel as to the character of the charter be accepted as true, the fact remains that the libelant chartered the barge, with a captain on board … This I think is in accord with the decision in Prince Line, Limited, v. Mayer & Lage, Inc. (D. C.) 264 F. 856 .

Mateo v. Jetblue Airways Corp.

847 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2012

It provides for carrier liability for damages caused by bodily injury of a passenger “on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” Montreal Convention art. 17. … Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.

Cooper v. Power

260 F. Supp. 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 9, 1966

Wright v. … Sims v.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Nanan

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 14, 2022

See Summons Returned Executed for the New York City Environmental Control Board (docketed on Oct. 12, 2020) at 1, DE #8. The Control Board never appeared in this action. … Mem. at 21, DE #23, the Selva Affidavit is in no way “analogous” to the affidavit of the plaintiff’s asset manager in Miss Jones LLC v. Brown, 17 Civ. 898 (NGG)(VMS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148140, at *21 (E.D.N.Y.

Buitoni Foods Corp. v. Gio. Buton & C. S.P.A.

530 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 3, 1981

Opinion of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at 17. 14. The TTAB made the following findings: A. … A District Court is not circumscribed by the [Trademark Trial and Appeal] Board’s interpretation of either (i) court decisions or (ii) the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusions of law. Royal Crown Cola Co. v.

E.M.S. Industrie S.A. v. Polskie Towarzystwo Okretowe

608 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 9, 1985

Compare Komatsu, Ltd. v. States S.S. Co., 674 F.2d 806 (9th Cir.1982) with Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander, 648 F.2d 415, 424 (5th Cir.1981). … This case is quite different from General Electric Co. v. M.V.

Bucalo v. East Hampton Union Free School District

351 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 3, 2005

The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted the statute as follows: “The Legislature has spoken unequivocally that no action or proceeding may be prosecuted or maintained against any school district or board of education … There is a one-year Statute of Limitations for any action brought against a school district or board of education under section 3813(2-b) of the N.Y. Educ. Law. See Henry Boeckmann, Jr. & Assocs. v.