Case law

Sanders v. Fischer

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 3, 2021

As a result, the Appellate Division could not have unreasonably applied any clearly established Supreme Court precedent if the Supreme Court has never clearly established the precedent supporting Petitioner’s argument. … The Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent nor did it unreasonably determine the facts when it reached this conclusion.

In re Persaud

496 B.R. 667 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 30, 2013

Accordingly, the Trustee moved to permit Troutman — the firm the Trustee believed was best qualified to render these services to the Estate, id. at ¶ 6 — to be appointed as substitute counsel in lieu of Pereira & Sinisi. … Based on my review of the extensive record, including the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that Klein’s testimony is not entirely credible, I find that this factual finding is not clearly erroneous.

James v. Superintendent Doldo

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 1, 2022

And petitioner has not shown that the trial court’s rejection of his IAC claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or was “based on an unreasonable determination … Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 99 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to make a meritless motion does not qualify as ineffective assistance of counsel).

Tejada v. Superintendent

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 2020

“Clearly established Federal law” is comprised of “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” … A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court

Lindsay v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

481 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 10, 1979

But the evidence clearly does indicate that Mrs. … Consistent with its position that it is immune by virtue of the statute of limitations from any liability on account of warnings prior to the June 1968 package insert, defendant has not offered any argument as to the adequacy

Bouloute v. United States

645 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 19, 2009

Favorability of the evidence to the accused The investigation of Douyon for additional drug trafficking activities by ICE-FL clearly does not reflect favorably upon him. … Prejudice to the defendant A Brady violation may only established only if the suppressed evidence is material. Payne, 63 F.3d at 1208 .

Palmese

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 2, 2026

In order to make out a prima facie case at the first step of that framework, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) they “exercised rights protected under the FMLA,” (2) they were “qualified for [their] position,” (3) they … leave [are] too temporally remote to establish causation.”

Reed v. Town of Babylon

914 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 18, 1996

The extent to which these barriers persisted after the early 1960’s was never clearly addressed. … But if Gingles so clearly identified the three as generally necessary to prove a § 2 claim, it just as clearly declined to hold them sufficient in combination, either in the sense that a court’s examination of relevant circumstances

Augustin v. Jablonsky

819 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 19, 2011

Clearly, then, the Mitchell court never needed to determine how to “deal with management issues” regarding class members’ individual claims for emotional distress damages, and is of little assistance here. … Coughlin, 715 F.Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y.1989) “teaches that the Court clearly can (and we submit, should) determine garden-variety emotional distress damages on a class basis in a phase 2 trial, and add that award to the general

Rankins v. Arca Continental S.A.B. de C.V.

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 30, 2024

This factor “‘subsumes several Grinnell factors,’ including the complexity, expense and likely duration of litigation, the risks of establishing liability, the risks of establishing damages, and the risks of maintaining … The class is clearly defined. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 55-5, ¶ 56.)

In Re CINAR Corp. Securities Litigation

186 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 2002

Class Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim against Corbeil therefore more clearly sounds in strict liability, rather than fraud. … In the instant case, plaintiffs have clearly challenged the rule's application. See Class Pls.'

Gil v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 11, 2023

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. … Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma pauperis status.

Pierre v. John Doe

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 14, 2025

court “shall” dismiss an action where it is satisfied that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (ii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … An action is “frivolous” when either “the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy,” or when “the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

United States v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

518 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 1, 2007

of racketeering activity sufficient to establish its RICO claims. … While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.

Brody v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 13, 2021

The record in this case does not establish that the defendant was an eligible spouse for the purpose of pursuing a hearing on behalf of his deceased wife, because he cannot establish that he was “living continuously” with … Statute of Limitations Aside from the standing issue, the action is clearly time barred.

Timmer v. City University of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 13, 2021

The Court held a pre-motion conference on November 17, 2020, at which Plaintiff agreed to dismiss several of his claims as barred by sovereign immunity. (See 11/17/2020 Minute Entry.) … Although the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has remained qualified to perform his job “and remains a well-liked and respected employee” (Am.

Trisvan v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 24, 2020

dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis action if the Court determines it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … If Plaintiff intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over his state law claim, Plaintiff must clearly state the basis for doing so.

Burke v. QUICK LIFT, INC.

668 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 23, 2009

Accordingly, plaintiffs have clearly met their burden of proving that the installation performed by Piles was negligent; Quick Lift had a duty to plaintiffs to correctly install the davit, it breached that duty by failing … having employed an incompetent or otherwise unsuitable contractor unless it also appears that the employer either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care might have ascertained, that the contractor was not properly qualified

Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc.

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

Accordingly, LIC 73 and NYCHA qualify as additional insureds under the Purchase Agreement. … Here, because Quinn clearly alleges negligence by Topline, his complaint induces ASCC’s duty to defend.

United States v. 175 Inwood Associates LLP.

330 F. Supp. 2d 213 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2004

Upon this observation, the Court concludes that Defendants 175 Inwood Associates LLP, Abraham Woldiger, Abraham Taub, and Peter Hoffman all qualify as “owner[s]” under Section 107(a)(2). … The proffered evidence clearly establishes Rockaway Metal was a tenant at the Inwood Site when the Site was purchased *228 by Defendants and that Rockaway Metal’s existing lease with Einbinder was assigned to 175 Inwood Associates