Case law

Securities & Exchange Commission v. NIR Group, LLC

283 F.R.D. 127 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 17, 2012

The party seeking to invoke a privilege carries the burden of establishing that the privilege has not been waived. Nikkal Indus., Ltd. v. … Documents of this nature are clearly protected by the privilege. Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202 (“a document ... prepared because of the prospect of litigation warrants application of Rule 26(b)(3)”).

United States v. Juvenile Male

269 F. Supp. 3d 29 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 2017

Given the presumption that exists in favor of juvenile adjudication, the burden is on the government to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is warranted. … [and] clearly is one of the primary purposes of the juvenile delinquency provisions.” United States v. Nelson, 90 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Nelson II”) (citation omitted).

David v. Heckler

591 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 11, 1984

This case presents the issue of how much information an administrative agency is required to give a claimant and how clearly that information must be presented. … Readability The evidence at trial clearly established that the review notices could not be understood by the great majority of the beneficiaries who received them.

In Re" Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit.

304 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 9, 2004

Under the government program, both plaintiff veterans might qualify for a veteran's disability benefit regardless of when these diseases first appeared. Id. … It thus threw its cloak of contractors defense immunity over Agent Orange producers even though it and they knew of the dioxin in Agent Orange.

Gentile v. Touro Law Center

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2023

Neither can the Court infer that Plaintiff was qualified for the VA Position without facts establishing what the relevant qualifications for the position were. … Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall bear docket number 21-CV-01345 (JS)(ARL).

Ruiz v. Bayshore - Brightwaters Rescue Ambulance, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2021

As a discrete episode, defendants conclude, the flagpole incident cannot possibly qualify as “pervasive.” (Id.) … An employee’s complaint may qualify as protected activity, satisfying the first element required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, if the plaintiff has a good faith, reasonable belief that he was opposing

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.

133 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2001

Compliance with regulations does not immunize misconduct outside the regulatory scope. Compare Small v. … No case holds that when intentional deception is alleged, unrelated regulatory supervision immunizes.

Beharry v. Reno

183 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 2002

This concept has been most clearly embodied in admiralty cases, where domestic law may directly clash with customary international *598 law. … Petitioner would not qualify for section 243(h) relief because he is not a member of a protected class under that section.

Engler v. Cendant Corp.

434 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 23, 2006

“ERISA established a comprehensive federal statutory program intended to control abuses associated with pension benefit plans.” … Standard Oil, 849 F.2d 1039 , 1045 (7th Cir.1988) (“Under ERISA, severance benefit plans qualify as welfare benefit plans.”).

Liberman v. Brady

926 F. Supp. 1197 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 29, 1996

The Court finds that the defendant has clearly met its burden. … The defendant clearly established that the plaintiff made a number of deliberate false statements.

Rodriguez v. Heath

138 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 13, 2015

The question here is whether that: conclusion was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court precedent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). I turn to that case law now. … Because “[i]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court,” Harrington, 562

Martin v. New York City Transit Authority

148 F.R.D. 56 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 1993

The burden of establishing the need for disclosure of interview statements and the breaching of the informant’s privilege is on the party seeking it. Secretary of Labor v. … Based on the nature of the documents withheld as described in plaintiff's papers and the description provided by the DOL's counsel during oral argument, this court finds that the deliberative process privilege clearly protects

Concepcion v. United States

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 2025

In cases such as this one, a “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims fall within an applicable waiver” of sovereign immunity. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). … Because the Supreme Court has not yet interpreted the FSIA’s analogous “exclusion” to the sovereign immunity of foreign governments, and because 28 U.S.C.

Galvin v. New York Racing Ass'n

70 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 1998

Plaintiff clearly has a property interest in his license and NYRA credentials. … Under such circumstances, plaintiff clearly has established a likelihood of success on his procedural due process claim.

Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc.

293 F.R.D. 329 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 9, 2013

Lastly, the Defendant suggests that because there might be a need for individualized determinations with respect to damages, the Plaintiff has not established typicality. … Defendant raised these concerns while challenging the Plaintiffs motion for class certification, the Court finds that these concerns can be adequately addressed by modifying the Plaintiffs proposed class definition, so as to clearly

Zwickler v. Koota

261 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 13, 1967

No person is immune from prosecution in *990 good faith for his alleged criminal acts. … It referred to the well-established principle of abstention: "This now well-established procedure is aimed at the avoidance of unnecessary interference by the federal courts with proper and validly administered state concerns

Giacopelli v. Incorporated Village of Malverne

829 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 12, 2011

As set forth above, the Plaintiffs retaliation claim, if based on the Defendant’s *142 failure to promote him to Lieutenant, is clearly time-barred. … There appears to be no dispute as to whether the Plaintiff’s injury qualified him as “disabled” under the statute. See Def. Ex. D, Letter from Russell L.

Dall v. St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center

966 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 14, 2013

Plaintiffs Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; … Jan. 21, 2005) (finding that plaintiff established the second prong of his gender discrimination claim where defendant did not dispute that he was qualified for his position).

Murph v. United States

12 F. Supp. 3d 557 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 17, 2014

establish prejudice as required by Strickland . … establish prejudice as required by Strickland .

Stafford v. Incorporated Village Of Sag Harbor

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 23, 2019

Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415, 431 (2d Cir. 2009) (“To establish a violation of substantive due process rights, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state action was ‘so egregious, so outrageous … The Southampton Defendants’ additional arguments concerning qualified immunity (as to Blodorn) and Monell liability (as to the Town) (Def.