Case law

Miller v. Senkowski

268 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 22, 2003

Allen further indicated that there was no guarantee that he could resume Petitioner’s defense after one week and that later complications caused by his lowered immune system could further delay the proceedings. … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States

Bibi v. Bitter

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2024

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to establish the qualifying relationship with the foreign national beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a). … Once processed, the case is deemed documentarily qualified, which means that the visa applicant has submitted the necessary documentation to be scheduled for an interview. Id.

Walker v. Brooklyn Public Defenders Office

District Court, E.D. New York · May 7, 2021

without “a qualified interpreter (advocate)” and “any auxiliary aids and devices for [P]laintiff’s disability” violated Plaintiff’s rights (id. at 31). … Plaintiff thus cannot bring an ADA claim against BDS attorney Regis, a private individual (who does not qualify as a state actor, as previously discussed).

Fragrancenet. Com, Inc. v. Fragrancex. Com, Inc.

679 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 14, 2010

To rebut that presumption, defendant must present evidence that clearly demonstrates that plaintiff's images lack *320 originality. … Thus, the circumstances in Oriental Art are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. Defendant's reliance on Custom Dynamics, LLC v.

Saugatuck, LLC v. St. Mary's Commons Associates, L.L.C.

District Court, E.D. New York · May 19, 2020

Nov. 6, 2014) (“[W]hen a party makes only conclusory or general objections [] the Court will review the Report strictly for clear error.[] Objections to a Report must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings … Obj. at 3); (ii) in finding (A) that “the Agreements lack specific language establishing that the Qualified Contract clause is superior to the Option,” (id. at 5), (B) that “Plaintiff’s reliance on inferences with respect

Carter v. Inc. Village of Ocean Beach

693 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 19, 2010

Plaintiffs clearly were not “permanent employees” within the meaning of the New York Civil Service Law. … (See Plf. 56.1 Counter-Stat. in Response to Ocean Beach Defendants' 56.1 Stat, ¶ 12), Thus, Hesse was clearly not the high-ranking official plaintiffs would have this Court believe. .

Shema Kolainu-Hear Our Voices v. Providersoft, LLC

832 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 21, 2010

Case law confirms that this is acceptable practice, although not a firmly established conclusion. See Arbitron, Inc. v. … Turning to the instant dispute, the conduct SK-HOV complains of does not qualify as “consumer oriented.”

Pizzuto v. County of Nassau

239 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 16, 2003

A guilty plea qualifies as actual litigation for purposes of collateral estoppel in a subsequent civil trial. Gelb v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 38, 43 (2d Cir.1986). II. Federal Law Claims A. … Thus, when considered together, Defendants’ guilty pleas under § 241 and § 242 clearly establish a set of facts that are identical to those necessary for satisfying the elements of a civil conspiracy claim.

Berkley Insurance Company v. Prime Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 18, 2023

I therefore find that Tides 2 and Averne II qualify as additional insureds under the Prime Policy. … Berkley counters that Prime’s reliance upon Section 3420 is misplaced, in that it does not immunize Prime from having to reimburse post-tender defense costs after it received timely notice on half of the Beechwood Entities

Iacobelli v. HPB/DOB City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2024

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that 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 … ., “the claim lacks an arguable basis in law” or “a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint.”

Goldberg v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

281 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 2003

The plaintiff argues that this Court’s prior holding that the refusal of Cablevision to cablecast shows until the programmer signs an Second Access User Contract does not constitute the exercise of editorial control is clearly … of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Ojo v. The United States of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2020

Plaintiff argues that the proposed second amended complaint, attached to his objections to the R&R, “cure[s] the exhaustion issues,” as well as the other grounds for dismissal “because it clearly establishe[s] that . . … immunity.

Griffin v. Ms Fludd

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2020

Supp. 2d 463, 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (It is well-established that “under New York law, departments that are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart … The Second Amended Complaint must clearly be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”, shall bear the same docket number as this Order, 19-CV-00107(JS)(SIL), and shall be filed within thirty (30)

Zulli v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2025

not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.”) (citations omitted). … Additionally, the Judicial Defendants contend that they are immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity.

United States v. Caronia

576 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 11, 2008

Promotion of off-label uses by a drug manufacturer’s representative clearly falls within the broad statutory definition of the offense. … Caronia’s “speech” is used, the government says, only to establish the element of intent and to establish motive. The government compares this case to Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (D.C.Cir.2004).

Principal Life Insurance v. Locker Group

869 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 15, 2012

The Court may determine materiality as a matter of law based on “evidence of the insurer’s practice with respect to similar risks, as shown by such documents as the insurer’s underwriting manuals ... and by testimony of a qualified … Ratification requires clearly established intent, and “may not be inferred from doubtful or equivocal language.” Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Salamon, et al., No. 09-cv-5428, 2011 WL 976411 , at *4 (E.D.N.Y.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. County of Nassau

825 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 24, 1993

Treiman which they urged established that Nassau County could not have applied the Cresap evaluation procedures in good faith. … A ready solution for the prevention or immunization of such abuses is not at hand.

Mamot v. Walgreens Pharmacy

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

When a civil action is first filed, the Court must assume that all clearly stated facts (but not the legal conclusions) in the complaint are true. Kiobel v. … Moreover, a plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Karvaly v. Ebay, Inc.

245 F.R.D. 71 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 6, 2007

The numerosity requirement is clearly satisfied here. … The Second Circuit has held that “[c]lass-wide issues predominate if resolution of some of the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy can be achieved through generalized

In Re Ishihara Chemical Co., Ltd.

121 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 16, 2000

Nevertheless, the circuit court “has expressed some concern over conflicts with foreign jurisdictions that could be engendered by § 1782,” holding that “ ‘[a] grant of discovery that trenched on the clearly established procedures … It would intuitively appear that a proceeding challenging the validity of a patent before a foreign body would qualify as a proceeding before a foreign tribunal.