Case law

Henry v. County Of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 16, 2022

Accordingly, since Defendants have not satisfied their burden of establishing the specific need or reasons for continued confidentiality treatment or demonstrate what, if any, harm would result from disclosure of the Findings … Thus, ordinarily, these documents would clearly fall within the protections of the attorney-client privilege. Here, however, even if privileged, the privilege has been waived.

Vehap v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 14, 2020

statute, the Court must dismiss the action if it determines that it “(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (ili) seeks monetary relief from 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

Reed v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.

327 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 24, 2018

While "[n]o fixed formula has been established" with respect to its application, Nat'l Communs. Ass'n v. … The Court need only consider the appropriate remedy in the event that the Plaintiff establishes that a violation of Title III occurred.

Smith v. National Grid USA

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2025

Smith does not clearly identify the specific alleged protected activities that were targeted by each of the specific alleged retaliatory actions. … I construe National Grid’s argument on reply that “there is no evidence that Smith was qualified for any supervisory position” to mean that National Grid contends that it did not promote Smith because he was not qualified

Cole v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · May 4, 2020

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 … Yet despite differences between the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in certain contexts, courts in this Circuit apply “the established Eighth Amendment framework for claims of sexual abuse by prison officials” to pretrial

United States v. Gotti

771 F. Supp. 552 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 1, 1991

Gotti anticipated that immunity orders would be obtained in regard to their testimony. Gambino was represented by Michael Rosen; Corrao and Remini were represented by Gerald Shargel. … That is clearly not the case here. The relationship between Coiro and Shargel and Cutler is considerably more extensive and the government’s interest in disqualifying them is quite strong.

Di Iorio v. The County Of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · May 1, 2024

To bring a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, plaintiff must establish that: (i) her employer is subject to the ADA; (ii) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (iii) she was otherwise qualified … Court finds “Plaintiff has failed to meet [her] burden to establish the third element of a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, namely that [s]he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential

Perlman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC

932 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

This section does not appear to create any substantive rights that a beneficiary of a qualified retirement trust can enforce.”); Beiliang Loh v. Richardson-Browne, Civ. … Finally, there is clearly a need to avoid the duplicative litigation that has already arisen in this case.

Landa v. American Prospect, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2023

Further, a court may also take judicial notice of a document filed in another court to establish that document’s filing. See In re Olympia Off. LLC, 585 B.R. 661, 667 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. … From the outset, the Article clearly represents its author’s point of view.

Adams v. City of New York

993 F. Supp. 2d 306 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 2014

ADA Isdith’s testimony is not admissible to establish probable cause. … Clearly this “relevant information” would have been extremely relevant in the criminal prosecution which was dismissed for legal insufficiency.

SC Note Acquisitions, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

934 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2013

Moreover, plaintiff concedes that the IRS may never determine that the Trust no longer qualifies for REMIC status. 3. … In addition, the court found that the complaint clearly demonstrated that there was a “practical likelihood” that some tax liability would be imposed. Id.

Fraga v. SMITHAVEN MRI

866 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 26, 1994

Not all unregistered marks and names, however, qualify for protection; only those unregistered marks that are sufficiently distinctive to link a product or a service to its source are eligible. … The third factor clearly favors plaintiff. As a result, it is unnecessary to address the fourth factor, which is relevant only where the parties are not in immediate competition.

United States v. Bellamy

592 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2009

Allowing a defendant who responds to an unconstitutional stop with an illegal act to benefit from the exclusionary rule would immunize that defendant from prosecution for all crimes he might commit that have a sufficient … The court, therefore, need not determine whether there was probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the specific provisions of the state law crimes with which he was initially charged, because there was clearly

Haimdas v. Haimdas

720 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 2, 2010

Respondent has not claimed or established that such an order would be “clearly inappropriate.” … would be “clearly inappropriate.”

United States v. Bimba

233 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1964

In this respect it is clearly distinguishable from the affidavit found to be inadequate in United States v. Salomon, 231 Fed. 928 (5th Cir. 1916). Cf. United States v. Richmond, 17 F.2d 28 (3d Cir. 1927). … Indeed, such an allegation, if proven and supported by the proper facts, could well qualify under the second aspect of the test enunciated in Chaunt v.

United States v. Turner

660 F. Supp. 1323 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 5, 1987

Goff reiterated the restrictions on the types of programs that may qualify for a deferment and warned defendant that entering a surgical internship might result in her default. … The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of genuine factual issues, Schering Corp. v.

United States v. Ten Cartons, Ener-B Nasal Gel

888 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 1995

The Aminoplex Notice very clearly indicates that the FDA considered Aminoplex not to be a “food” because of its route of administration. See 52 Fed.Reg. 25072 (July 2, 1987). … The evidence at the hearing, however amply established that well-qualified and credible doctors and scientists are of the opinion that the medical and scientific definition of the term “food for ... humans” is consistent

Roe v. Levittown Public Schools Board of Education

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2025

Facial plausibility is established by pleading factual content sufficient to allow a court to reasonably infer the defendant’s liability. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. … Since the Court finds that the claims fail on the merits, there is no need to consider Defendants’ argument with respect to qualified immunity. III.

Paul v. Postgraduate Center for Mental Health

97 F. Supp. 3d 141 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

[B]ut [the supervisor] will have to add something [even though] there was clearly no problem with me. … “To establish a 'prima facie case of retaliation ...

Wolpert v. First National Bank of East Islip

381 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 9, 1974

Borak, supra, 377 U.S. at 431 , 84 S.Ct. 1555 , is the opportunity to make free choices among lawfully nominated and qualified candidates. … The court sees no reason to disrupt the Bank’s established procedures by changing the annual meeting date.