Case law

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.

Clorox Co. v. Winthrop

836 F. Supp. 983 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 3, 1993

Clearly, Clorox requires discovery to attempt to seek to prove this contention. … The settlement of the prior litigations did not perpetually immunize Sterling from antitrust scrutiny. Clorox maintains that its claims are based on changed circumstances.

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.

Ganzy v. Allen Christian School

995 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 2, 1998

The complainant must show she (1) is part of a protected group, (2) was qualified for the position and was satisfactorily performing her job, (3) was adversely affected by the decision to terminate her, and (4) was treated … There is no indication in the record that she was not qualified or was not satisfactorily performing her job. She clearly was adversely affected by the decision to terminate her.

Inter Insurance Agency Services Ltd. v. Insurance Department of the State of Oklahoma

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 15, 2024

On June 18, 2024, the OID and Mulready (the “Movant Defendants”) moved to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of proper venue, and because the Insurance Department and Mulready are purportedly immune … communications sent between Defendants in Oklahoma and Plaintiffs in the Eastern District—these events did not directly give rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs nor do they bear a sufficiently close nexus to the claims to qualify

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....”

In Re Playmobil Antitrust Litigation

35 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 30, 1998

Second, where the consuming public is harmed by price-fixing activity, the public interest demands redress, and Congress has clearly decreed that punishment in the form of treble damages is appropriate for violations of the … The Abrams court qualified its decision to deny class certification: [w]e do not have to go so far as Interco would have us, namely to hold that in order to support damage recovery by a nationwide class plaintiffs would be

Oawlawolwaol v. Boy Scouts of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 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 … A plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Geller v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

237 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 8, 2002

The manual stated that “in order [for a transplant] to qualify for reimbursement from the pool ... [t]he transplant must have occurred on or after April 1, 1993.” Id. … In any event, the Trust claims that Prudential has not submitted sufficient evidence establishing that it paid these claims. Id. at ¶ 5.

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.

Turner v. New York Rosbruch/Harnik, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2015

Plaintiffs argue they suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because NYRH’s reputation was “clearly illusion-ary.” Id. ¶¶ 77-78 . Third, Plaintiffs assert a RICO cause of action. … Therefore, the factual allegations must give rise to a strong inference to establish the defendants possessed the necessary fraudulent intent.

Butler v. Suffolk County

289 F.R.D. 80 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 19, 2013

These conditions clearly constitute “physical injury” sufficient to satisfy the PLRA. See Waters v. Andrews, No. 97-CV-0407, 2000 WL 1611126 , at *8 (W.D.N.Y. … Further, class counsel must be “qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.” Bajfa, 222 F.3d at 60. a.

Taylor v. Connelly

18 F. Supp. 3d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 7, 2014

A state rule or requirement must be firmly established and regularly followed by the state in question to qualify as an adequate procedural ground. See Beard v. … Thus, the Appellate Division determination that the Petitioner’s sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Muhammad v. New York City Transit Authority

450 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2006

These stops, conducted without reasonable suspicion, quite clearly violated the men’s rights under Article I, §§ 11 and 12, of the State Constitution. … In Martinez , the plaintiff failed to establish adequate grounds for recognizing a State constitutional tort claim.

United States v. Cummings

764 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2011

Alternatively, counsel for the defendant asked the Court to direct the Government to grant her immunity so that she can testify. … Clearly, the unwarned statements would be inadmissible at trial, except for impeachment purposes on cross-examination.

Jacobs v. New York Foundling Hospital

483 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 16, 2007

Summary Judgment Standard The standard for granting summary judgment is well established. … In sum, Congress clearly chose to include these types of non-profits for a specific reason, and did not include non-profits similar to Foundling.

Marroquin v. Jenkins

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 29, 2022

Plaintiff asserts that his December 6, 2021 pre-suit demand qualifies as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. … Defendants’ notice of removal was clearly timely. III.

P.L. v. New York City Department of Education

56 F. Supp. 3d 147 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2014

“To ensure that qualifying children receive a FAPE, a school district must create an individualized education program (“IEP”) for each [disabled] child.” R.E. ex rel. J.E. v. … if (2) they establish that their unilateral placement was appropriate and (3) the equities favor them.”

Kleyman v. SUNY Downstate Medical Center

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 21, 2020

“[O]nce a defendant has established the existence of a non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action, a plaintiff must ‘establish that the employer’s stated non-discriminatory reason is either false or inadequate … John to respond to Plaintiff, noting that it “[n]eeds to go out to her that she is mistaken in her conclusion and that deficits were clearly identified and discussed.

Paulsen v. PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc.

216 F. Supp. 3d 259 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 24, 2016

The NLRA’s protections extend to workers who qualify as “employee[s]” under § 2(3) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 152 (3). … Furthermore, in both cases, PrimeFlight and Bags employees were not held out as carrier employees; their uniforms clearly identified them as PrimeFlight and Bags, respectively.