Case law

Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2023

To qualify as an additional insured, AG Green must establish that KB Restoration agreed to name it as such in a written contract, that the contract was executed before the accident and in effect at the time of the accident … Whether Posiko’s work is viewed as that of an employee or that of a supervisor, he was clearly performing his tasks on behalf of KB Restoration.

Homere v. Inc. Vill. of Hempstead

322 F. Supp. 3d 353 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 22, 2018

As to those portions of a report to which no "specific written objections" are made, the Court may accept the findings contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous … ' 'is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.' " Norton v.

Morris v. Board of Estimate

647 F. Supp. 1463 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 1986

Sims indicated might be justified by ... the maintenance of established political subdivisions....... … Most citizens can achieve this participation only as qualified voters through the election of legislators to represent them.

Bernhard v. Central Parking System of New York, Inc.

282 F.R.D. 284 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 18, 2012

, it may be potentially necessary for her to implead third-parties as well as move for summary judgment if she determines that there were other Central employees who had the requisite authority over the Funds’ assets to qualify … Dec. 8, 1998) (“In addition, there is little risk of prejudice because the defendant clearly knew from the outset that the complaint was directed in part against its individual employees.

United States of America, ex rel Don Hanks v. Amgen Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 2022

Since the Government does not dispute the existence of Hennig’s charging lien, I am going to assume that California law applies to the extent of establishing the existence of an attorneys’ lien. … Supp. at 783-84.2 The qualifying language in Section 6328 applies where the recovery is from the United States, not a third party.

Keles v. Yearwood

254 F. Supp. 3d 466 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 2017

Despite his qualification for the position, plaintiff alleges, LCC hired a less qualified person who was under the age of forty at the time. Id. ¶ 28-29. … Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish that LCC rescinded his Fall 2012 appointment because of his protected activity.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Alexander

248 F.R.D. 108 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2007

Glover was the established doctrine of this court. It was presumably enacted with the ruling of that case in mind. … We cannot believe that Congress intended to give immunity to those who for the period named in the statute might be able to conceal their fraudulent action from the knowledge of the agents of the government.

M. Ali Construction Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 18, 2020

The Policy, however, clearly delineates the distinction between the named insured and additional insureds. … Specifically, the named insured is defined as the party so named in the policy declaration and, with strict time limitations, certain organizations that the party named in the declaration establishes or acquires during

Muhammad v. New York City Transit Authority

52 F. Supp. 3d 468 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2014

Here, Muhammad’s amended complaint clearly passes muster. It states *480 that Muhammad, a Transit Authority bus driver, (Amd. … Evidence in the record establishes that the Transit Authority did not uniformly enforce its uniform policy.

Chance v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc.

371 F. Supp. 439 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 23, 1974

Wilmington, Cincinnati, or Atlantic City was more clearly the location of decision. Plaintiffs also rely on the lobbying activities of IME with respect to proposed legislation on labeling in the mid-1950’s. … The Austin Powder Company (which sold but did not manufacture blasting caps) is qualified in six of those ten states.

United General Title Insurance Co. v. Karanasos

561 B.R. 316 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 27, 2016

exchange because the Debtor still had an actual interest in the Rockville Centre Property and therefore he did not receive anything; 3) the transfer did not benefit the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and therefore does not qualify … Stated otherwise, an occasional omission of facts is seldom sufficient to establish a' claim of false oath.

In re MetLife Demutualization Litigation

262 F.R.D. 217 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2009

The elements for establishing liability under Section 12(a)(2) are similar, though not identical, to those for establishing liability under Rule 10b-5. … It clearly was.

Schindler v. Finnerty

74 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 1999

There is little authority clarifying exactly what qualifies as a “civil action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a). … Clearly, an investigation into the possible misconduct of a patent attorney does not amount to a substantial question of federal patent law. It is not a “civil action ... relating to patents.”

Wilson v. Beaulieu

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 14, 2021

“[T]o state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and its laws, and (2) that the deprivation was ‘committed by a person … Sept. 6, 2016) (“Depression and dizziness do not qualify as ‘actual physical injury’ under § 1997e(e).”); Antrobus v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-2524, 2014 WL 1285648, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.

DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 3d 680 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2017

Resolution 116ss provided that it would not go into effect without an affirmative grant of antitrust immunity from DOT. In March 2000, DOT publicly rejected Resolution 116ss. … Moreover, DHL had previously acknowledged at a hearing before Judge Gleeson that "[t]here is clearly, we don't dispute, there is notice that they were bankrupt,” . DPWN acquired Exel pic in 2005.

Mitchell-Cabreja v. Tantillo

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

Supp. 3d 305, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[D]ismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements.”) (citing Rodriguez v. … Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., 712 F.Supp. 39, 43 (D.N.J.1989) (“a valid marriage is a prerequisite to establish a claim for loss of consortium”)).

Persaud v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd.

33 F. Supp. 3d 139 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 21, 2014

Therefore, the issue is clearly controlling, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation. … Defendant has not satisfied the second statutory requirement, because none of the arguments that defendant raises establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion.

The Verizon Employee Benefits Committee v. Nikolaros

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 2025

ERISA establishes a set of statutory criteria that QDROs must satisfy in order to create a right to receive ERISA benefits. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(C)–(D); Verizon Pension Plan 95. … Section 1056(d)(3)(C)(ii) requires that the order “clearly specif[y] . . . the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount

Chavarria v. New York Airport Service, LLC

875 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 2012

Clearly, the settlement of the FLSA claims meets the legal standards for approval. IV. … Additionally, I find that counsel was well qualified to conduct this litigation.

Amigon v. Safeway Construction Enterprises LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 9, 2024

liability, the risks of establishing damages, and the risks of maintaining the class through trial.” … To qualify for certification, a class must meet the prerequisites set forth in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.