Case law

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

CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. IVAX Corp.

375 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 15, 2005

The Plaintiffs object and argue that the recommendation as to each issue is clearly erroneous. … Clearly the loss of exclusivity will affect its income substantially, at least in the short term, if a preliminary injunction is not granted.

Rocky Point HPFS, Inc. v. United States

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

Similarly, the Court has articulated the Four Criteria (see supra at 29)), which “must be established by substantial evidence” to qualify for a CMP. Id. … it qualified for a civil money penalty through substantial evidence.”

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Town of East Hampton

862 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 1994

Moreover, a review of the “Rate Orders” clearly demonstrates that the FCC is familiar with the complex and technical regulatory scheme that is the 1992 Cable Act, considered the matter in a detailed and reasoned fashion, … Section 534 requires the cable operator to carry the signals of local commercial television stations, and Section 535 requires the operator to carry the signals of qualified noncommercial educational television stations.

Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Health Programs of Am., Inc.

350 F. Supp. 3d 199 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 28, 2018

Plaintiffs seek a revision to defendants' EEO policies to include "a clearly-defined complaint process that provides a number of accessible avenues by which complaints can be made, makes clear that employees may bypass their … Likewise, EEOC claimants do not qualify as parties. Thus, Local Civil Rule 54.1 does not preclude awarding plaintiffs from obtaining costs associated with the claimants' testimony.

Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon

536 F. Supp. 829 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 15, 1981

On September 21, 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was established in the former French, British and United States Zones; and on October 7,1949, the German Democratic Republic was established in the former Soviet Zone … Under these conditions it seems impossible not to recognize that it ‘is clearly not identical with the Former German Reich.

Clarke v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 25, 2022

Third, Plaintiff asserts that the medical evidence establishes that his nerve-root compression limited his range of motion. (Pl. Mem. at 14-15.) … Berryhill, No. 18-cv-767 (HKS), 2020 WL 1445069, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Plaintiff is clearly owed a more substantive explanation of why he did not meet the Listing 1.04A.”).

Alwan v. City of N.Y.

311 F. Supp. 3d 570 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 1, 2018

Section 1983 only provides a cause of action for deprivations "of rights, privilege, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States ." Cornejo v. … Moreover, state courts do not appear to have clearly endorsed the view that a plaintiff may not assert a claim under the New York State Constitution based on the same factual allegations that support a parallel § 1983 claim

Mktg, Inc. v. Oceanside Ten Holdings.com, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 2019

That hardly qualifies as a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. … That holding was neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law since, as set forth above, defendants’ motion only referred to one telephonic conversation between the parties which hardly qualified as a good faith effort

Sullivan v. Local 553 Pension Fund

29 F. Supp. 3d 185 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

(Dkt. 18 (“Def. 56.1”) ¶ 10; Dkt. 30 (“PI. 56.1”) ¶¶ 1-2.) 2 The plan was established pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) between Local 553 and various employers. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 10.) … This is an outcome clearly not contemplated by parties that specifically went to lengths to define the scope of covered employment.in the relevant agreements.

United States v. Hickey

16 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 12, 1998

Finally, a perusal of Count One clearly indicates that it does not allege a “single, unitary ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ ” as claimed by defendants. … So viewed, the affidavit here clearly passes muster.

Durakovic v. Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund

642 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 31, 2009

Notably, “because the Social Security Administration has a ‘treating physician’s rule,’ and ERISA-governed private pension plans do not, it is not very surprising that a claimant could qualify for Social Security disability … This medical evidence, which the Funds were entitled to rely upon, in tandem with the vocational assessment (notwithstanding the court’s misgivings), clearly outweighs the marginal nature of the administrators’ conflict of

Beckett v. Atlas Air, Inc.

968 F. Supp. 814 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 24, 1997

1319 , 108 L.Ed.2d 495 (1990), cited by Atlas, states that “[n]o private cause of action exists under the RLA for ... employees who assert retaliatory conduct based upon employee activities which bear no relationship to establishing … Because we hold that Lebow has the right to seek one form of legal relief (punitive damages), a jury trial is necessary, and we need not decide whether the other relief sought (reinstatement with back pay and benefits) qualifies

Bohack Corp. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

431 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 1977

By November 1975, the company held 72 retail stores, essentially now a regional chain, down from a high of 200 stores in 1973, when it qualified as a general supermarket. … Moreover, Binder’s testimony establishes that the company was in no way motivated by a desire to rid itself of the Local 807 contract.

Spinrad v. Comair, Inc.

825 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 23, 2011

Implied consent is sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law. See, e.g., Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 39 (2d Cir.2009); Golden Pac. Bancorp v. … And another Federal Aviation Administration regulation — potentially but not clearly applicable here — requires that airline emergency exits “be of such length after full deployment that the lower end is self-supporting on

Kahn v. Wien

842 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 2, 1994

Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden … Great American Indus., Inc., 855 F.2d 987, 994-95 (2d Cir.1988), the omission of valuations, particularly those that are not prepared by a qualified expert, is not improper. See South Coast Serv. Corp. v.

Morgan v. County of Nassau

720 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 1, 2010

These officers established a “police line” near the entranceway to the campus where the protest was staged. … However, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for false arrest even when no probable cause existed, as long as a reasonable officer in the same situation could have believed there was probable cause

In Re DES Cases

789 F. Supp. 552 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 13, 1992

One established basis for jurisdiction is consent. … The need for adaptation in this case is clearly indicated by the fact that, without it, these New York plaintiffs would likely be barred from recovering from these defendants in any court.

Turner v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 1, 2023

To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) her employer was subject to the ADA; (2) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) she was otherwise qualified to perform … Not only has Plaintiff not identified an existing vacant position where Defendant could have accommodated her, but she has also not established she was qualified for an alternative role.

Utley v. Miller

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 21, 2025

In such a case, “the federal court will focus its review on whether the state court’s ultimate decision was an ‘unreasonable application’ of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.” … For the purposes of federal habeas review, “clearly established Federal law” means “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.”