Case law

United States v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

983 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 23, 1997

The Court finds that Winthrop, which is a teaching facility providing primary, secondary and tertiary health care services, qualifies as an anchor hospital. … In its moving papers, the Government did not set forth a clearly defined relevant geographic market.

Salahuddin v. Access-VR SRC

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 2, 2022

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of … Plaintiff should use the general complaint form and blank or ruled pages to clearly state her allegations rather than try to fit her allegations within the form complaint.

Atkinson v. In the matter of the State of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 19, 2021

either immune from suit or are otherwise not proper Defendants under § 1983.” … Here, Plaintiff was afforded that opportunity and the Court clearly set forth, at a minimum, what is required to plausibly allege his due process claims against the Defendants.

Charles

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 2025

an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied 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 … 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

V. v. Bisignano

District Court, E.D. New York · May 15, 2025

Because Plaintiff did not file a reply, he never engages with these issues, and in light of this challenge, the Court cannot conclude that the record conclusively establishes that Plaintiff carried his burden at step one … Feb. 23, 2022) (“[T]o the extent Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for violations of the Social Security Act, his claim is barred by sovereign immunity.”).

Sky Medical Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Services, Inc.

17 F. Supp. 3d 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 7, 2014

Accordingly, “[w]hile this may prove to be a difficult fact to establish at trial, it is sufficient to establish open ended continuity for the purpose of this motion to dismiss.” … As to the second issue, defendants are not immune from RICO liability simply because non-party insurance companies, and not defendants, denied plaintiffs no-fault claims.

Albaum v. Carey

283 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 15, 1968

The superintendent’s recommendation would be a sort of screening device which brought before the Board of Education the names of all those who were qualified by objective standards. … Clearly the state must be given substantial authority to choose its teachers on the basis of intangibles.

Leach v. Superintendent

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2023

Leach has also not shown that the state court's determination on the merits was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … The court qualified her as an expert and instructed the jury to give her testimony the weight they thought it deserved. Id. at 572.

FILMS BY JOVE, INC. v. Berov

341 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 5, 2004

The December 24, 2003 Directive states that its purpose is to establish “the uni *203 form interpretation and application in practice” of the June 30, 1999 Directive. … Taken together, these changes purport to establish that the government of the Russian Federation transferred the copyrights in the films to FSUESMS in 1999.

Lopez v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.

298 F. Supp. 3d 503 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 18, 2018

limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and a *506 general aggregate limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00). ( Id. ) The coverage provided by the Policy is limited to individuals or entities that qualify … Accordingly, that case is clearly inapposite. 4 Moreover, disclaimer "is unnecessary when a claim falls outside the scope of the policy's coverage portion[,] ...

Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. v. County of Nassau

106 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 20, 2000

The proposition that a plaintiff can establish an Equal Protection claim by showing that he was selectively treated because of a malicious intent to injure is not novel; it was specifically articulated as one way of establishing … As to the causes of action seeking to cancel the tax deed The fifth and sixth causes of action in the second amended complaint do not clearly specify the nature of the claim asserted.

Gottlieb v. Hot Forex

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

Supp. 3d 78, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (dismissing action where Plaintiff failed to establish the amount in controversy); Gilot v. Equivity, No. 18 CV 3492, 2018 WL 3653150, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. … The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court. Farmer v. Dr. Lucia Patino, Optometrist, P.C., No. 18 CV 1435, 2018 WL 2214652, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.

Island Online, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc.

119 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 6, 2000

But, as the Second Circuit has clearly established, IOL need only assert a constitutional violation of its rights in order to gain standing, at least standing to seek nominal damages. … IOL attempts to close the gap by citing decisions holding NSI to be a federal instrumentality immune from antitrust liability under the Sherman Act. See Pl.’s Opp. Mem. at 14-15.

United States v. Knauer

707 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional … This language is clearly insufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 1.7(a).

Fetman v. Musso

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2021

City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact … “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, on consideration of the record as a whole, the reviewing court ‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Bongiovanni v.

Schlesinger v. United States

898 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2012

He explicitly states that the use of process of elimination is only appropriate where the origin of the fire is clearly defined. … In particular, Smith states that NFPA 921 only allows the use of the process of ehmination methodology when the origin of the fire is “clearly defined”.

Burton v. USA

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 12, 2022

an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action is “(i) 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 … Nevertheless, “a pro se plaintiff must still comply with the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law, including establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.” Wilber v. U.S.

Carter v. City of New York Dept. of Correction

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2023

shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it finds 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 … Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to establish an adequate basis for the equitable tolling of his claims.

Serrano v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

863 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2012

When a contract clearly identifies a single document, it eliminates all reasonable doubt and thus qualifies as an effective incorporation. See Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v. C.A. … A private cause of action can stand only if a plaintiff establishes a violation of one of the factors set forth at section 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I-V). Id.

Herzog v. The New York City Department of Education

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

Schulmann, 605 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010), defendants have restated the second factor for establishing a prima facie case. … But the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the “Developing” mark, even though clearly not entirely satisfactory, means unsatisfactory.