Case law

City of New York v. United States

337 F. Supp. 150 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 1972

Also the record clearly shows that throughout much of that period the Railroad was in default in the payment of rent. … While the Court of Appeals for this circuit has held that an order refusing to reopen is not “wholly immune from judicial examination,” Cappadora v.

Cabrera v. Fischler

814 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 17, 1993

An examination of the special verdict sheet clearly indicates that the jury found Luck-ett’s substantive constitutional rights to have been violated by Breitman’s agent. … Did the plaintiffs establish that the defendant EMANUEL [sic] FISCHLER, doing business as AM REALTY CO. acted as an “agent” for the defendant BENJAMIN BREITMAN, as the Court has explained that concept to you, with regard

In Re Air Crash Near Nantucket Isl., Oct. 31, 1999

462 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 27, 2006

In light of the amendment, these cases assume renewed vitality as relevant precedent in ascertaining who qualifies under the statute as a dependent relative for pecuniary and nonpecuniary awards. … Although not clearly stated in the decision, it appears that the Bissett court applied general maritime law to determine damages.

Simmons v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 12, 2021

Other than this qualified recollection, the Amended Complaint includes no additional factual content to suggest that any loan document was forged. … an in forma pauperis complaint that “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Oxman v. Downs

999 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 14, 2014

This is “because ‘the record was available to and clearly known of by all parties to this action.” Dellate, 2010 WL 3924863 , at *5 (quoting Bennett v. … established law and the information the ... officers possessed.”).

Redd v. New York State Division of Parole

923 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2012

Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir.1999) (Title VII “does not permit employees to immunize' improper behavior simply by filing an EEOC complaint”); Hubbell v. … The court simply concludes that Burgos’s deposition statements do not qualify as direct evidence of retaliation — that is, evidence demonstrating retaliation “without resort to inference.”

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

731 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 2010

Bradfield, who is now General Counsel of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), has advised: It would be clearly inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement not to utilize the important information that has been … Junz had not established that, in fact, Deposited Assets Class claims generally have been underpaid.

Chin v. New York City Department Of Corrections

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 24, 2024

“Subjecting former officials’ decision-making processes to judicial scrutiny and the possibility of continued participation in lawsuits years after leaving public office would serve as a deterrent to qualified … Significantly, “[i]f the immunity Morgan [II] affords is to have any meaning, the protections must continue upon the official’s departure from public service.”

United States v. City of New York

276 F.R.D. 22 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 8, 2011

In the alternative, they argued that they also qualified for certi *28 fication under Rule 23(b)(3). (Id. at 7-9.) … Id.; see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (“Framed for situations in which ‘class-action treatment is not as clearly called for’ as it is in Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) situations, Rule 23(b)(3) permits certification

Jean-Baptiste v. Montway LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 19, 2022

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing either type of subject matter jurisdiction. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). … Second, Plaintiff alleges only that the value of his automobile is $17,000, which clearly does not meet his burden to establish a “reasonable probability” that he can recover more than $75,000 in this action to meet the

Gambino, DC v. Village of Freeport, NY

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

Def.’s Mem. at 14–15); and (3) the Village is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ damages claims, (id. at 15–17). … Mot. at 13–15 (second alteration in original)); and (4) the Village is not entitled to qualified immunity because the protection does not extend to municipal governments, (id. at 15).

Spirit Locker, Inc. v. Evo Direct, LLC

696 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 19, 2010

For Spirit Locker to succeed, it would have to establish that a business may itself be a consumer under § 349. … A breaching real estate buyer seeking to recover a deposit must actually establish unconscionability.

Thomas v. New York City

814 F. Supp. 1139 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 5, 1993

“Clearly the Family Court ... is bound by the Federal Constitution. … Finally, it should be noted that the Harlem Dowling defendants have raised an issue of whether some of the individual Harlem Dowl-ing defendants are protected by a qualified *1155 immunity.

Redd v. Federal National Mortgage Association

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

However, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with the requirements of § 310(b), and § 310(e) does not allow for Plaintiff’s form of service where she has not made a motion or received direction from the Court. … A plaintiff asserting a claim under the FHA must allege facts showing: “(1) that [she is a] member[] of a protected class; (2) that [she] sought and w[as] qualified to rent or purchase the housing; (3) that [she] w

Saviano v. Chater

956 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 1997

In order for the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings, the movant must “clearly establish[ ] that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rivera v. … Pug-liese, who treated the plaintiff on several occasions, beginning in 1992, subsequent to the period at issue in this case, is the only doctor who qualifies as his treating physician. Dr.

Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare

208 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2001

She urges the Court to reject these findings as clearly erroneous. See Pltf.’s Aff. in Opp’n ¶ 2; Pltf.’s Memo, of Law at 1, 4-10. … Vytra’s role was limited to determining whether the proposed treatment qualified as an experimental procedure under the terms of the plan.

Ruiz

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2026

[only] establish[es] the fact 55; Mortgage Summons and Compl.) … Jan. 10, 2025) (“[C]ourts in this Circuit have consistently held that any attack on a judgment of foreclosure is clearly barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” (alteration in original) (quoting Brooks v.

The City of New York v. United States Postal Service

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 16, 2021

The Cause of Action The Postal Service is an “independent establishment of the executive branch” that enjoys federal sovereign immunity. Dolan v. … Although plaintiffs have cited these cases and statutes, they have not clearly articulated how they apply to this case.

St. Francis Hospital v. Sebelius

874 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 5, 2012

The first appeal is made to the fiscal intermediary (Empire), the second to a “Qualified Independent Contractor,” the third to an Administrative Law Judge for a hearing and decision, and the fourth to the Medicare Appeals … Clearly this is not the case where the plaintiff is “challenging the application of concededly valid regulations.” Abbey, 978 F.2d at 45 .

Joseph v. Stark

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 2021

“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory … Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.”).