Case law

Joseph v. JRF Income Tax Business Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 10, 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 … Plaintiff alleges that he experienced bad customer service, including waiting “1 to 2 hours over the phone” before being informed that he did not qualify for benefits and waiting “for 8 hours” at the office without anyone

Burke v. Royal Insurance

39 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 15, 1999

Defendant argues that Koloski decided which of his three field auditors to terminate by following guidelines established in Royal’s employee handbook. … Because both HIV and diabetes, left untreated, are clearly life threatening, one could conclude that diabetes, like HIV, is a disability under the ADA.

Jones v. New York City Department of Education

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

Under the test, “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 is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment … While the nature of this incident is disputed by plaintiff, the defendant has “clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for” the disparate treatment.

United States v. Hall

419 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 17, 2005

Prejudice Nearly all courts have held, assuming that suppression is an appropriate remedy for a violation of the treaty, the defendant must establish prejudice. … The Preamble to the Treaty states that the purpose of the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the treaty “is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf

Tankleff v. Senkowski

993 F. Supp. 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 19, 1997

In so finding, this Court is mindful of the recent Supreme Court decision that held that State-court determinations of “in custody” do not qualify for a presumption of correctness under Section 2254(d) because such rulings … Moreover, based on the voluminous evidence before this Court, there was clearly no racial aspect to this case and no reason to assume an illegitimate reason for peremptory challenges.

Bonaffini v. Brooklyn College

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2024

It is certainly hyperbolic, as clearly not “all” the Italians have moved out of Brooklyn. … He first points to the establishment of the John D.

Agosto

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 13, 2025

district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … As such, [t]he district court judgments should clearly set forth the reasons for dismissal, including whether the dismissal is because the claim is “frivolous,” “malicious,” or

Sala v. Gates Construction Corp.

868 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 14, 1994

Finally, it is well-established and uncontroverted that the barge was not in transit at the time of the accident. … Thus, clearly the barge in this matter could be found by a reasonable jury to be a vessel under Section 905(b) of the LHWCA. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied on this issue.

In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation

279 F.R.D. 90 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 26, 2012

First, the named plaintiff must “demonstrate that class counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation.” Marisol A., 126 F.3d at 378 . … Although defendants do not explain this argument clearly, it appears to be a reiteration of their “no irreparable injury” argument.

Nippon Emo-Trans Co., Ltd. v. Emo-Trans, Inc.

744 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 1990

to establish a need to continue the attachment. … Rather, it appears to refer to the wide variety of qualifying circumstances then contained in Section 6201.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. CKB168 Holdings, Ltd.

210 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

“Most courts do not require the SEC to establish each of the various cited factors in order to prevail on summary judgment, but rather determine that some combination of factors establishes that the defendant acted as a broker … Similarly, Prpts themselves may qualify as securities. First, they may qualify as investment contracts. See SEC v. Rose Fund, LLC, No. 03-cv-04593 (WHA), 2004 WL 6069175 , at *6 (N.D. Cal.

Purcell v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 17, 2020

The Court finds that Judge Mann’s ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. … retained discretion to determine the number of witnesses that would qualify for such services. Id. (collecting cases).

Parnell v. Lape

791 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 13, 2011

These could certainly qualify as facially neutral, non-pretextual reasons as they are “based on something other than the race of the juror.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 . … In short, there is adequate record evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions- — -at least to insulate them from being labeled “clearly erroneous.”

Lebron v. Saul

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2024

Her observation that Lebron’s symptoms improved when treated is beside the point because the record clearly shows that Lebron did not always comply with that treatment. … Sanchez’s opinion unequivocally establishes that Lebron meets the criteria for a listed impairment, there are no gaps in the administrative record to fill.

Coughlin v. New York State Unified Court System

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 26, 2023

The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction carries the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction exists. Id. … immunity.

Cave v. Beame

433 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1977

Even if this court has threshold jurisdiction under the mandamus statute, it is clear that, in keeping with the standard established in Lovallo v. … The guidelines of the New York City Charter with regard to the establishment of community districts, however, are purely discretionary.

Valente v. The United States of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 15, 2023

As a result, Defendants have established that the independent contractor exception applies, such that Plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of the FTCA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity. … Plaintiff does not object to this determination, and the Court does not find it “clearly erroneous.”

Manigaulte v. C.W. Post of Long Island University

659 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 15, 2009

“In making this determination, the court should not consider the merits of a claim or defense on a motion to amend unless the amendment is ‘clearly frivolous or legally insufficient on its face.’ ” Blaskiewicz, 29 F.Supp.2d … Sept. 14, 2006) (plaintiff does not have to prove he is a “ ‘qualified individual with a disability’ in order to succeed with a retaliation claim under the ADA”).

Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey

466 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 21, 1979

The NYSARC Panel was not a body established by the State defendants as a state administrative agency; rather, it was established upon the State’s default of constitutional obligations and is composed of some members selected … Such a rule would apply beyond the Review Panel membership situation presented here; for example, masters and receivers, who act much more clearly as “arms of the court” clothed with impartiality, would be precluded from

Hamilton

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 25, 2025

In Forma Pauperis Upon review of Hamilton’s IFP Motion (IFP Mot.), the Court finds that Hamilton is qualified by his financial status to commence this action without the … Accordingly, “a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes state action.” Flagg v.