Case law

Hicksville Water District v. Jerry Spiegel Associates, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 12, 2020

Rather, “[t]he federal[-]officer removal statute must be construed broadly because ‘one of the most important reasons for removal is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court.’” … “To be ‘colorable,’ the defense need not be ‘clearly sustainable,’ as the purpose of the statute is to [ensure] that the validity of the defense will be tried in federal court.”

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Allstate Driving School, Inc.

301 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 5, 1969

However, the pamphlets are clearly identified as having been published by Allstate Insurance. … In fact, they established clearly that defendant is merely a local commercial operation. See Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. v. Couri, 220 F.Supp. 929 (S.D.N.Y. 1963); Societe Anonyme, etc. v. Julius Wile Sons, supra. Cf. W. E.

Volant v. News 12 Long Island

District Court, E.D. New York · May 22, 2024

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 creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v.

Thompson

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 21, 2025

Therefore, the report does not qualify as adverse employment action, either. … The Second Circuit has stated clearly that a two-year temporal gap is “too great to raise a plausible inference of” retaliation. Dhar v. City of New York, 655 F.

Raghunath v. State of New York et, al

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2024

The Court’s obligation “to construe a pro se complaint liberally” continues to apply “[e]ven after Twombly” established the plausibility standard for assessing pleadings. Newsome v. Bogan, 795 F. … [his] claim is clearly untimely.” Kimberly W. v. Saul, No. 21-cv-00042, 2021 WL 880110, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2021); see also Merola v. Lowe, No. 20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 4350205, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y.

Green v. City of New York

438 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 17, 2006

As enforcement of the Medicaid program is clearly designated to the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health, the court thus finds that there is no private right of action under N.Y. … Medicaid, a jointly funded federal and state medical assistance program, pays the medical costs of qualifying indigent individuals whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of their medical care.

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.”

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.

Newsome v. Astrue

817 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2011

Analytical Framework To qualify for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A), a plaintiff must establish his “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical … Nevertheless, the ALJ rejected this diagnosis on the ground that “nothing in the record establishes by objective diagnostic evidence that the claimant does, in fact, have a medically established impairment of DVT....”

Essani v. Earley

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 22, 2021

P. 6 Having resolved Defendants’ motion on the reasons set forth above, the Court need not and does not consider the parties’ qualified immunity arguments. ¶¶ 2, 23. … Constitution and explaining that “[a] search conducted pursuant to § 415-a5 . . . clearly falls within the well-established exception to the warrant requirement for administrative inspections of ‘closely regulated’ businesses

In Re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, Etc.

535 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 10, 1982

The basis for this additional request for relief is plaintiffs’ argument that defendant remains bound by its waiver of defenses to liability in the Warsaw Convention even though it fails to qualify for limitation of its liability … Clearly, the remedy provided for by the Convention, whether expressed in terms of a cause of action arising under the treaty, see Benjamins v.

Davis v. Johnson

258 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 14, 2003

A decision is an “unreasonable application of’ clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case.” … Dudley’s testimony may not have convinced the jury that Davis qualified for a justification defense. The jury heard other evidence regarding Davis’s state of mind, which is primarily what Dr.

Dash v. Board of Education

238 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 3, 2017

It was determined that plaintiff had been “made aware that [the student] was in possession of a razor blade, which is clearly an immediate safety emergency. … To qualify as continuing, the claimed actions must not be “discrete acts,” but “repeated conduct” that “occurs over a series of days or perhaps years.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 .

United States v. United States v. Article Consisting of 216 Individually Cartoned Bottles, More or Less, of an Article Labeled in Part: Sudden Change

288 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 30, 1968

Subjected to the incessant advertising campaigns of the cosmetic industry, a potential buyer can be expected to have achieved some immunity to the beautifiers’ hyperbole. … The vulnerability of consumers attempting to distinguish between “puffery” and “substantive representations which are believed and relied upon” is clearly spelled out in the following excerpt from an article appearing in

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.

EZ Pawn Corp. v. City of N.Y.

390 F. Supp. 3d 403 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 5, 2019

Under this theory of liability established by the Supreme Court in Monell v. … Br., Dkt. 46, at ECF 414); and (2) Bulzomi is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is unsettled as to whether an arrest on misdemeanor charges followed by several court appearances, as happened with Onwuakor's criminal

Olascoaga Cruz v. Amazon Fulfillment

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

The standard for a plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote is well-established. … However, where any amendment to the complaint would clearly be futile, dismissal without leave to re-plead is appropriate. See, e.g., Cuoco v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corp.

268 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 17, 2003

When read together, these provisions clearly authorize the State of New York, as a “government,” to bring suit under Title VII. … What these two provisions do not do, however, is clearly define how states can invoke standing to bring Title VII suits.

Reyes v. Greiner

340 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 15, 2004

Artuz, 326 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.2003), the most recent Second Circuit decision to address the issue (in the context of a reverse-Batson challenge raised in a post-AEDPA habeas petition), reserved decision on whether clearly established … Judge Sack wrote: “Because we think that the trial court made an express ruling ..., we need not and do not decide whether clearly established Supreme Court precedent required the court to do so in this case.”

Tillman v. Luray's Travel

137 F. Supp. 3d 315 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2015

To make out the prima facie case of discriminatory termination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified to perform the job in question; (3) he suffered an … adduced no evidence tending to prove that this reason was a pretext; he merely labels Lu-ray’s articulated reason as "pretextual" and cites to his 19-A certification in an attempt to characterize the DOE certification as a clearly