Case law

Horsham v. Fresh Direct

136 F. Supp. 3d 253 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2015

Nor does Defendant contest that Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. … Were state law to erect such a bar, it would clearly run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2.” (internal citations omitted)); Scalera v.

United States v. Bethea

191 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 8, 2016

declaration to establish standing. … If anything, Defendant’s statements were more than likely a response to Officer Xylas looking into the Vehicle, an “action,” which also does not qualify as interrogation or its functional equivalent.

Woodard v. New York Health and Hospitals Corp.

554 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 17, 2008

All of this evidence establishes beyond any doubt the managerial status of Woodard’s new role. … Dunn also testified that "Woodward was clearly qualified and during the time that she did [the minutes], she did a very good job.” Dunn Dep. at 29. 11 .

Mowatt v. Nassau County Correctional Center

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

Pauperis Applications Upon review of Plaintiff’s declarations in support of his applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified … dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Mowatt v. Nassau County Correctional Center

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

Pauperis Applications Upon review of Plaintiff’s declarations in support of his applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified … dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Ratliff v. Capra

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 4, 2024

For an independent and adequate state ground to bar habeas relief, the state court rendering the judgment must "clearly and expressly" state that its judgment rests upon a state procedural bar. Whitley v. … Here, the Appellate Division clearly and expressly stated that Ratliff's sufficiency of the evidence clause claim was unpreserved for appellate review. Ratliff I, 85 N.Y.S.3d at 493.

Mendez v. U.S. Nonwovens Corp.

312 F.R.D. 81 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 2014

See Flores, 284 F.R.D. at 130 (“More importantly, the sworn affidavits of named Plaintiffs clearly demonstrate that Plaintiffs are familiar with, and are actively participating in, this litigation.”); Hamelin v. … overtime and spread-of-hours compensation to its employees_ Although individual questions as to damages may exist, ‘common legal issues related to the members’ entitlement to overtime wages and the proper measure of such wages clearly

Nawaz v. United States Department of State

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2024

Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2009) (“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” (quotation omitted)). … The Second Circuit has also stated that “[the Second Circuit] has long held that ‘a consular officer’s decision to deny a visa is immune from judicial review.’” See Chhabra v.

Matthew v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2020

“[A] major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory … The term “discriminate against a qualified individual” is statutorily defined to include “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability

Mejia v. United States

862 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 24, 2012

Nevertheless, the evidence clearly established that this was the case. … Similarly, the evidence clearly established the § 1959 motive element, as the Second Circuit interprets that element. See, e.g., United States v.

Makary ex rel. Estate of Makary v. EgyptAir

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.

Potente v. Citibank, N.A.

282 F. Supp. 3d 538 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 17, 2017

While courts have found exceptions to the rule of caveat emptor , the Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that would qualify for those exceptions. See Barkley v. … The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section.

Al Saidi v. U.S. Embassy in Djibouti

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 18, 2021

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm Plaintiff-beneficiaries risk losing the ability to qualify for derivative citizenship. … “The purpose of Form I-130 is to establish the existence of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. citizen . . . and the alien beneficiary.” Almakalani, 2021 WL 980846, at *1.

Schmidt v. Kosinski

District Court, E.D. New York · May 3, 2022

Instead, they want witnesses who, at least in some instances, are not qualified New York voters. … Circulating petitions “clearly constitute[s] core political speech,” because it “of necessity involves both the expression of a desire for political change and a discussion of the merits of the proposed change.”

Carlos v. Philips Business Systems, Inc.

556 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 16, 1983

In 1979, PBSI began to establish direct dealers known as Independent Retail Outlets (“IRO’s”). (S148) They were designed to replace failed distributors or to cover areas not already covered by an exclusive distributor. … The first of these requires that plaintiff qualify as a “franchise” within the guidelines set forth in the Franchise Practices Act.

Piotrowski v. the Rocky Point Union Free School District

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2023

Even if such claims were cognizable under Section 1983, however, qualified immunity precludes a finding of liability here. … Indeed, throughout his briefing on the subject plaintiff cites no cases at all for the proposition that Mayer would not be shielded by qualified immunity for her actions relating to the 2017 and 2018 VOPs.

Hall v. North Bellmore School District

55 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2014

Principal Hirsehfield also wrote, “[A]s I have shared with [Plaintiff] in the past, teachers should communicate clearly and effectively to ensure student success.” (Id.) … The only elements of Plaintiff s prima facie case that Defendants dispute are whether she was “qualified for tenure” and “denied tenure under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination.” (Dkt.

Suffolk Parents of Handicapped Adults v. Pataki

921 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 4, 1996

The County’s role in TCF was that of financial manager, clearly a lesser role, while the State was responsible for case management. … The entire history of transitional care clearly establishes that five weeks was an inadequate period in which either plaintiffs or the State could act to protect plaintiffs’ liberty interest in institutional conditions determined

Reyes Ex Rel. Reyes v. Fairfield Properties

661 F. Supp. 2d 249 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 2009

To undertake to construct an entirely new facility in an existing building does not, under these circumstances, qualify as an “accommodation” of a “rule, policy, practice or service,” when the term “construction” is nowhere … Apr. 26, 2002) ("[T]his Court finds that the fact that Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of her right, under § 3604, to reasonable accommodation of her disability, does not immunize Defendants from liability under

Beverley v. 1115 Health & Benefits Fund

420 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 12, 2005

[Furthermore], I now had an insubordinate worker within my department who had been given blanket immunity to defy my authority. Olken had literally thumbed her nose in my face and gotten away with it. … Plaintiffs termination in November 2001 was clearly an adverse employment action, and she therefore satisfies the second prong. Her claim fails, however, under the third prong.