Case law

Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, Inc. v. Fischer

63 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 10, 1999

copies of the documents listed in their Schedule I and authenticating affidavits from qualified witnesses. … Clearly, Spielman is not a witness who could offer testimony at trial supporting plaintiffs’ claim of embezzlement. The Joseph Affidavit also refers to testimony of Council Chairman Samuel Malamud.

Bennett v. Hofstra University

842 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 3, 2012

To establish a prima facie case for employment retaliation, the Plaintiff must establish that (1) he “engaged in protected activity” (2) that Hofstra “was aware of this activity” (3) that Hofstra “took adverse action against … The Plaintiff does not clearly articulate how complaining to Dr. Robinson about his conduct towards CSTEP students and his supervision of CSTEP generally is equivalent to complaining about gender discrimination.

File

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 29, 2026

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243–44 (2009) (officers entitled to qualified immunity when they acted in accordance with the law established by multiple courts of appeals and state Supreme Courts). … “[I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.” Allianz Ins. v.

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

3 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 1996

However, a satisfactory evaluation from one’s program director did not necessarily mean that a candidate was qualified for ABR examination and certification. … Defendants also assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which plaintiff claims was waived.

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

312 F.R.D. 254 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 2016

Thus, the quantum of evidence required to establish that the proposed class members were subject to the same illegal payroll policy is significantly less than the quantum evidence to establish a common illegal policy in a … hours pay each Plaintiff is due based on the hours projected for their shift and the number of hours worked, ‘common legal issues related to the members’ entitlement to overtime wages and the proper measure of such wages clearly

Bullseye Rest., Inc. v. James River Ins. Co.

387 F. Supp. 3d 273 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2019

The Policy clearly states that it covers only offenses committed during the policy period. Here, the claims of four of the five plaintiffs in the underlying action, viz. … JRIC has withdrawn this reservation and concedes that Brennan qualifies as an insured. (Pls.' 56.1 at ¶ 44.) This last reservation is not addressed in the current motion.

Cyrus v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 12, 2024

To make a prima facie showing of discriminatory failure to promote or hire under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified … “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under . . . the ADEA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment

Federal Republic of Germany v. Elicofon

358 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 1972

On October 7, 1949, the USSR proclaimed the establishment of the German Democratic Republic in the zone occupied by the USSR. … The Supreme Court in Clark, supra at 508-510 , 67 S.Ct. 1431 , clearly indicated that our courts should not enforce treaty provisions where to do so would defeat our Government’s foreign policy objectives.

Rocha v. Bakhter Afghan Halal Kababs, Inc.

44 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 15, 2014

Once this is established, the federal court has jurisdiction “unless the purported federal claim is clearly ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is' “wholly insubstantial and frivolous … Apr. 24, 2012) (“[T]he question of whether a defendant qualifies as an enterprise under the FLSA is not a jurisdictional issue, but an element that a plaintiff must establish in order to prove liability.”

Pest v. Bridal Works of New York, Inc.

268 F. Supp. 3d 413 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 27, 2017

The evidence presented indicates clearly that plaintiff and defendants agreed that plaintiffs weekly salary would cover no more than 40 hours of work per week. … tags that were displayed on the garments she worked on (Pest Dep. at 43), as indicated supra, the Court finds that her pay stubs as interpreted by the witnesses appear to suggest a different method of payment and do not clearly

Hyman v. Brown

197 F. Supp. 3d 413 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 13, 2016

Although AEDPA deference can at times look and feel like immunity it is nevertheless not absolute, and not a bar to relief on the unique and compelling facts presented here. … Under clearly established Supreme Court law, Brettschneider’s failure to call Hink-son because of that fee dispute, or for any similar' reason, is violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Razzoli v. Richmond University Medical Center

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 25, 2023

., “the claim lacks an arguable basis in law” or “a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint.” … The Court need not decide whether the plaintiff is bringing medical malpractice or negligence claims because the plaintiff does not establish a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under either theory.

Nurse v. Lutheran Medical Center

854 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2012

Under this framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse … Viewed objectively, however, such complaints are clearly different from, and less serious than, the allegations that plaintiff physically assaulted Ms. Garcia, hung up on a parent and Ms.

801 Conklin Street Ltd. v. Town of Babylon Ex Rel. Town Board

38 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 9, 1999

Unbridled Discretion In the context of the First Amendment, it is clearly established that *243 a regulatory scheme which “places unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official” will be adjudged an unconstitutional … “[A] permit scheme qualifies as a prior restraint because it essentially requires the per-mittee to obtain the government’s permission or approval before engaging in an act of First Amendment protected speech.”

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

680 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 26, 2010

Therefore, because the plaintiffs EEOC charge contained the factual basis for a hostile work environment claim and because the EEOC was clearly aware of those facts, plaintiffs hostile work environment claim is “reasonably … However, an employer cannot immunize itself from a retaliation claim by offering an employee the “choice” of accepting allegedly discriminatory treatment rather than termination. See generally Wilkinson v. Serv. Mgmt.

Thompson v. Spota

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 28, 2022

Introducing Thompson’s expired driver’s license to establish her character for lateness would run afoul of Rule 404{b){1). … The court DENIES the Defendants’ MIL # 4 because the comment is clearly relevant to Defendants’ discriminatory intent.

Collins v. United States Postal Service

District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 2020

FTCA Jurisdictional Requirements The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit absent a waiver of that immunity by statute. … While a plaintiff “need not comply with the settlement procedures set out in the C.F.R. pursuant to §2672 to establish proper presentment,” Romulus I, 983 F.

Gavilanes v. Gerber Products Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 1, 2021

, HMO Immune Support.” … ” “2’-FL, HMO Immune Support.”

Volant v. Nassau County

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2025

In Forma Pauperis Upon review of Volant’s IFP Motion (IFP Mot.), the Court finds that Volant is qualified by his financial status to commence this action without the prepayment … “Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v.

Folkes v. New York College of Osteopathic Medicine of New York Institute of Technology

214 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2002

“Even if a jury were to find that there was no continuing violation, ‘clearly established precedent dictates that [a] discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge can still be relevant background evidence … The defendants argue that under the “Berry” standard, the plaintiffs claims cannot, as a matter of law, qualify for application of the continuing violation exception, and the court agrees.