Case law

Wilchfort v. Knight

307 F. Supp. 3d 64 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2018

Defendants cannot be said to have acted in bad faith for failing to establish procedures for an obligation that does not exist. 23 Wenzel , 2015 WL 3466863 , at *7. … In addition, paragraph 48, on which Defendant BRE relies, qualifies the list therein as non-exhaustive through the term "include[s]." ( Id. ¶ 49.)

Duffy v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B

795 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 29, 2011

But, “loss of wages by an identifiable group of employees does not qualify as irreparable harm in the Second Circuit.” United States v. … Here, even if the terms “bad moral character” or “good moral character” are not clear, conduct involving extortion and mail fraud is consistent with the former and antithetical to the latter; as such, such conduct clearly

Powell v. New York State Department of Education

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2022

To the contrary, the fact that the NYSED is not a person within the meaning of Section 1983 and the fact that NYSED has sovereign immunity are well-established. See, e.g., Berkowitz ex rel. Berkowitz v. N.Y.C. … Accordingly, plaintiff has not established good cause for his failure to properly serve defendants. 2.

De Pace v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America

257 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 15, 2003

In Great-West Life, the Supreme Court directly addressed whether an action to recover money pursuant to a reimbursement provision of an ERISA plan qualifies as “equitable relief” under §§ 502(a)(3). … In contrast to Geller , the misrepresentations at issue here clearly implicate the operation and management of a pension plan.

Strip Clean Floor Refinishing v. New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters

333 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 1971

This Court cannot say that the answers of the defendants in this case must be stricken on the ground that they are clearly insufficient as a matter of law. The contrary appears to be so. … limitations on authority is inconsistent with lack of authority; it is “indicative of an agency ratified” by the autonomous locals. 10 The plaintiffs also maintain that the autonomous locals cannot “cloak themselves with immunity

Smith v. US Bank National Association Mastr Asset Securities Trust 2006-WMC2

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 11, 2022

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing either type of subject matter jurisdiction. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). … There is no subject matter jurisdiction if “the purported federal claim is clearly ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’”

Incorporated Village of Garden City v. Genesco, Inc.

596 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 27, 2009

No [RI/FS] shall be authorized except on a determination by the President that the party is qualified to conduct the RI/FS and only if the President contracts with or arranges for a qualified person to assist the President … Indeed, “it is long and firmly established in New York that the violation of a rule of an administrative agency is merely some evidence of negligence but does not establish negligence as a matter of law because a regulation

Spotless Enterprises, Inc. v. a & E Products Group L.P.

294 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2003

However, a careful reading clearly indicates otherwise. … to establish whether the similarities were based on the functional elements of the design).

Chapman v. Maycock

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2021

There is no subject matter jurisdiction if the purported federal claim is clearly “‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial … Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994)); and (2) that the conduct complained of “must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of

Silva v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 19, 2024

regarding a proposed dismissal motion, arguing: Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim is barred by the statute of limitations; the Complaint fails to plead actionable claims; and, Defendant is entitled to immunity … “[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant’s notice of removal fails to allege facts

Gil Moreno v. Capital Concrete NY Inc.

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

A court “possesses significant discretion” in granting a motion for default judgment, “including [determining] whether the grounds for default are clearly established . . . .” Klideris v. … This is sufficient to establish that it had “immediate control” over Plaintiff, and therefore, that it qualifies as Plaintiff’s joint employer. See Vitti, 758 F. App’x at 156.

East End Eruv Ass'n v. Village of Westhampton Beach

828 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 3, 2011

Plaintiffs propose to establish an eruv within the three defendant municipalities. … The need for further factual development appears clearly to outweigh any risk of injury to plaintiffs from the court declining to exercise jurisdiction.

Mcloughlin v. Village of Southampton

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 13, 2024

The provision clearly applies to contract claims, and the Second Department held that “the ‘no other action’ language contained in CPLR § 9802 permits no exceptions” and applied the provision to bar non-contractual claims … Feb. 19, 2016) (“Courts in this circuit have held that adverse comments, criticism, threats to…employment, close scrutiny, and yelling…do not qualify as adverse employment actions.”).

Farbstein v. Hicksville Public Library

323 F. Supp. 2d 414 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2004

The first two items listed above clearly occurred outside of the three-year period and Plaintiffs claims with regard to them are therefore barred by the statute of limitations. … A plaintiff who establishes a continuing violation is entitled to challenge all conduct comprising part of the violation, even conduct that did not occur within the limitations period. Jaghory v.

Offor v. Mercy Medical Center, Rockville Centre Division

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2021

The conflicting evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly reveal fraud. … Plaintiff contends that, because the Second Circuit held her Complaint established “a prima facie case,” she no longer has to establish it again to withstand summary judgment; the analysis should begin with Defendants

Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Services, Inc.

109 F. Supp. 3d 555 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 8, 2015

I read the Second Circuit’s decision as holding that if the contracts are terminable at will, their value is too speculative to have them qualify as “property” under C.P.L.R. § 5201. … That perspective was not explained clearly enough,' which may explain why the Circuit remanded for further consideration, but I remain of the view that my perspective was correct.

Bien v. Smith

546 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 19, 2008

“A state court decision involves ‘an unreasonable application’ of clearly established Federal law if the state court applies Federal law to the facts of the case in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Brisco v. … CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the state courts’ determinations were not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Ranta v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2020

The case was originally assigned to Judge Townes, who dismissed the familial association claim on the ground that uncertainty in the law governing such a claim entitled the detectives to qualified immunity. … Clearly, the detectives’ conduct, as alleged in the amended complaint, was intentional; they did not accidentally frame David.

Eisenberg v. New York City Department of Education

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

A plaintiff can establish causation either directly, with evidence of retaliatory animus, or indirectly, by circumstantial evidence. Id. … Finally, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the DOE’s response was clearly unreasonable. A.

Goldstein v. Pataki

488 F. Supp. 2d 254 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 2007

Burford Abstention Defendants argue, relying on the doctrine established in Burford v. … Regarding the statute’s purpose, the Court found that “[rjegulat-ing oligopoly and the evils associated with it is a classic exercise of a State’s police powers” that qualifies as a public use.