Case law

Joseph v. Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center

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.”).

Joseph v. MTA NYC Transit

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.”).

Accardi v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 2024

Feb. 14, 2017) (“Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he suffered any constitutional deprivation, this Court does not reach Defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.”); Yap v … Supp. 2d 284, 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Since, as discussed supra, the Court concludes that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that constitutional deprivations occurred, the Court does not reach the qualified immunity

Viscecchia v. Alrose Allegria LLC

117 F. Supp. 3d 243 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 30, 2015

“To establish a pri-ma facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he suffered an adverse … Opp. at 3 (“Defendant clearly failed to evenly apply their grooming policies for all employees, and targeted Plaintiff because he is a man.

Mosier v. State University of New York

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

York’s sovereign immunity extends to the State University of New York system,” Wilkinson v. … immunity” Hauff v.

Davis v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 10, 2024

That is sufficient to establish probable cause. See Singer, 63 F.3d at 119. … immunity.

United States v. City of New York

799 F. Supp. 1308 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 31, 1992

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1988 — New York City established an Inter-Agency Work Group on Sludge. … Judge Cedarbaum astutely noted that [although neither the statute nor the decisions clearly define the special case exception, both clearly suggest that a special case is limited to circumstances in which it can be demonstrated

Hosannah v. Sposato

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2022

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven Locke recommending the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment but granting the individual defendants qualified immunity as to plaintiff … Because there are no underlying constitutional violations, plaintiff’s Monell claims fail as well, and the Court need not address the question of qualified immunity.

Hankerson

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 14, 2026

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is unable to find that a cause of action has been alleged, and the Complaint clearly does not comply with Rule 8(a). … Plaintiff’s submission does not establish either of these grounds for recusal.

Furst v. New York City Transit Authority

631 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 1, 1986

His deposition reads: A. ... the reason that I would support a policy like that is that I believe as a public agency that is providing service to the public, that we ought to have a policy, have the right to have clearly … Municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policy makers where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc.

98 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

Delta Air Lines, 175 B.R. 438, 499 (S.D.N.Y.1994)); see also 11 U.S.C. § 101 (31)(B) (setting out non-exhaustive list of persons and entities that qualify as “insiders”). … The Guarantors were clearly already in default of the settlement agreement.

J.F.K. Customs Brokers Ass'n v. United States

745 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 1990

Here, the goods for which entry is being made have certainly been entrusted to the express air services and thus, in the opinion of this Court the statute clearly and expressly allows for express air services to appoint customs … Plaintiff does not allege that its members have attempted to qualify for express services under Part 28 of the C.F.R. and have been discrimina-torily rejected. .

Hamilton v. Accu-Tek

32 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1998

In establishing minimum contacts, plaintiffs must either establish that “specific” jurisdiction exists through a showing that plaintiffs’ claims arise from or are related to a defendant’s activities in the forum, or that … This company is clearly a small, generally localized business with less than [ ] of its revenue generated from New York.

Kersey

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 9, 2026

“Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v. … If Kersey chooses to amend his complaint, he shall: (1) do so within thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order; (2) clearly labeled it “Amended Complaint”; (3) and include the same docket number as this

Hollingsworth v. Robinson

901 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 8, 1995

Seizing upon this language in Tracy , the defendants direct the Court’s attention to other provisions of the applicable correctional laws and regulations in an attempt to qualify the dimensions of this liberty interest, and … With this principle as a guide, the cases cited by the defendants are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, for neither involves a constitutional deprivation analogous to the removal of an inmate without notice from

Insurance Company of Greater New York v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 2026

Thus, for 90 Riverside to qualify as an additional insured under the Mt. … The answer is clearly no: nowhere is it alleged in the amended complaint or argued in plaintiff’s opposition papers.2 Plaintiff tries to confuse the issues by pointing

United States v. Mermelstein

487 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 2, 2007

The admissibility of this testimony depends upon whether the government is able to establish a proper foundation for it at trial. … Defendant’s challenge is more appropriately made at trial, when the court will have the benefit of the precise foundation established by the government.

Dixon v. DeBlasio

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

The requirements of this Order shall not apply to any establishment offering food or drink exclusively for off-premises or outdoor consumption, or to a food service establishment providing only charitable food services, … The Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause Finally, plaintiffs request that we adopt a novel view of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, contrary to that of both the

Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital

373 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 21, 2005

Plaintiffs omission of the § 740 claim from her amended complaint does not immunize her claims from the waiver provision in § 740(7). See Def. Mem. at 12. … It clearly states that the waiver applies when a plaintiff has instituted an action under section 740(7).” 2004 WL 1533831 , at *7 (emphasis in original).

Arista Technologies, Inc. v. Arthur D. Little Enterprises, Inc.

27 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 13, 1998

Furthermore, the Second Circuit’s decision in Bobker stated that “error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator. … Nor has Arista proved that the law that the Arbitrator allegedly refused to apply was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to this case.