Case law

Brown v. Head Kitchen dietician

District Court, E.D. New York · May 12, 2025

“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 … Feb. 16, 2025) (“The complaint only 3 The standard is different if Brown was a pretrial detainee and his claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment: [T]o establish a claim

Gueits v. Kirkpatrick

618 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 2009

established Supreme Court precedent.” … “For a state court to unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, it is not enough that a federal court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state court deqision applied clearly established federal

Charles v. TransUnion, LLC.

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

In sum, Plaintiff has clearly failed to demonstrate an injury that bears a close relationship to the harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for standing. See Maddox, 19 F.4th at 63. … Because such “[t]hreadbare” allegations fail to establish concrete injury, Zlotnick, 2022 U.S. Dist.

Charles v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

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

In sum, Plaintiff has clearly failed to demonstrate an injury that bears a close relationship to the harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for standing. See Maddox, 19 F.4th at 63. … Because such “[t]hreadbare” allegations fail to establish concrete injury, Zlotnick, 2022 U.S. Dist.

Guerrero v. Loiacono

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

“Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Paredes, 176 F. … Root is qualified to provide expert testimony, provided that it conforms to FRE 702’s remaining requirements.

United States v. Bregler

55 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 1944

(Applause)” He admitted making this speech which indicates clearly that he could not have understood Americanism very much nor did he absorb Americanism a great deal, and it is clearly indicative that when he took his oath … United States, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 1245 , the Court said as follows : “Non-fulfilment of specific conditions, like time of residence or the required number of supporting witnesses, are easily established, and when established

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey

492 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 1980

Id., § 209(2) (McKinney Supp. 1979). 4 In order to qualify under the program, various financial and categorical eligibility requirements must be met, 5 and the foster parents must be certified by OMRDD as “family care providers … Only when the financial burden upon the state becomes prohibitive or clearly inequitable should this Court stay its hand. 20 Because defendants’ obligation in this case is derived not from provisions of state or federal law

Webster v. Artuz

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 20, 2021

Neither Graham nor Miller clearly establishes that sentences imposed on juveniles that allow for parole release constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Bowling v. … For the same reasons, I reject Webster’s claim that his sentence violates clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Galloway v. County Of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 27, 2021

Notably, it is well-established that “[s]ince . . . disqualification is in the public interest the court cannot act contrary to that interest by permitting a party’s delay in moving for disqualification to justify continuance … This pleading does not unfairly affect any one individual Defendant, and, while it may foreclose all individual Defendants from asserting qualified immunity if their actions are found to be unlawful—which they deny—the

Hunt v. Artus

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2020

“‘To qualify as an adequate procedural ground,’ capable of barring federal habeas review, ‘a state rule must be firmly established and regularly followed.’” Johnson v. Lee, 578 U.S. ---, ---, 136 S. … Second Circuit precedent clearly establishes that these two provisions of state law constitute sufficiently independent and adequate state procedural grounds so as to bar federal habeas review.

Feiwus v. Genpar, Inc.

43 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 1999

Feiwus clearly assumes that Josefson was under an obligation to transfer the deed from Abingdon Management Corp. to the limited partnership a relatively short time after the former acquired title. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) … The Defendants further assert that defendant Hirsch is immune from liability for all of Feiwus’ claims because he is not a director of Genpar but only a minority shareholder in this corporation.

Schimkewitsch v. New York Institute of Technology

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

As one court held: In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, it is not enough for a plaintiff simply to allege that there is a “bottom line” racial imbalance in the workplace. … “While decisions of academic institutions are not immune from judicial scrutiny, review should be restricted to special proceedings under CPLR Article 78,” as opposed to a contract or quasi-contractual claim.

Deitsch v. Transunion, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2024

record as evidence at trial, for example, a custodian or any- one qualified to speak from personal knowledge that the documents were admissible business records.”). … Thus, the “past due” status was clearly historical. 13 As Plaintiff has failed to make a threshold showing that Truist’s reporting was inaccurate or misleading, this court need not con

Edmonston v. MGM Grand Air, Inc.

808 F. Supp. 197 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 11, 1992

There is no evidence to conclude that Charging Party would not have been promoted had he been more qualified than the successful candidate. (Defendants’ 3(g) Statement, Exh. … Clearly, waiver does not .apply in this case since defendants have raised plaintiffs failure to file as a defense. 7 .

New York v. West Side Corp.

790 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 3, 2011

responsible parties who may eventually seek contribution from them. 3 For instance, here, if Westside and Schiff were to settle their liability with the state, they could subsequently seek contribution, but would be statutorily immune … Clearly, there can be no recovery under CERCLA without NCP compliance.

United States v. Mazzeo

306 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2004

Certainly, the payment of mortgage interest and life insurance premiums might well qualify as spousal support. … In practice, it may be rare that a creditor other than the United States can do this, because most creditors do not share the United States’ privilege of immunity from state law statutes of limitations.

In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation

611 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 18, 1985

Public policy clearly favors settlements at the earliest practicable stage of a dispute. … The exception to the general rule of immunity from the assessment clearly applies in the instant case.

Liggins v. Capra

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 21, 2024

A petitioner's failure to comply with a state procedural rule qualifies as such an adequate and independent state ground, provided that (1) the state court actually "relied on the procedural bar as an independent basis … Here, the Appellate Division clearly and expressly stated that Liggins's confrontation claim was unpreserved for appellate review. Liggins I, 124 N.Y.S.3d at 851.

Koenig v. Benson

117 F.R.D. 330 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 14, 1987

Reliance will be presumed once materiality is established. See, e.g., Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 , 92 S.Ct. 1456 , 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972); Blackie v. … On balance Koenig is not qualified for certification. STUART SOLOMON Finally, there does exist one plaintiff whom the Court can certify despite the defendants’ vigorous opposition. This per-. son is Stuart Solomon.

Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 3d 40 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2015

Thus, “the standard for determining whether amendments qualify under Rule 15(c) is not simply an identity of transaction test.... … Under both a de novo or clearly erroneous standard of review, this court would adopt the ruling of Judge Scanlon.