Case law

Holmes

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 17, 2026

In response, the Second Circuit established a new test for evaluating a waiver. … Supp. 3d at 156 (explaining that a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment

Feltington v. Hartford Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 30, 2021

24 months and as a result her current her current monthly earnings were less than 80% of her indexed pre-disability earnings, and that therefore if she in unable to perform the duties of any occupation for which she is qualified … The Second Circuit has established a three-part analysis for determining whether documents relating to a lawsuit should be sealed. See King Pharm., Inc. v.

T.K. v. New York City Department of Education

32 F. Supp. 3d 405 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 23, 2014

To determine whether a parent has met the burden of showing that the unilateral placement is appropriate, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit established the following standard: “[t]o qualify for reimbursement under … Bullying Threatened to Severely Restrict L.K.’s Educational Opportunities Pursuant to the standard established in T.K. v.

Plaintiffs 1-3 v. The City of New York; Jessica S. Tisch, Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official capacity; Joseph Kenny, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; and John Hart, Assistant Chief of Intelligence for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 29, 2025

Plaintiffs qualify for the public interest exception. … (“[T]he Court finds that Defendants will clearly be prejudiced because they will not be able to engage in meaningful discovery on both the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims and whether the unnamed Plaintiffs will qualify

Clarke v. Communications Workers of America

318 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 20, 2004

The language of the CBA determines whether actions to initiate the grievance process qualify as “attempted” uses of the grievance procedure. In Schum v. South Buffalo Ry. … Statute of Limitations Plaintiffs’ section 301-fair representation claim is not clearly barred by the statute of limitations. The final Opinion and Award of the third arbitrator was issued on October 16, 2003.

United States v. Hardy

878 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 19, 2012

Sarrazin determined that Hardy’s condition qualified as a “psychiatric emergency” for which involuntary medication is authorized by regulations. … The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that this is not the case, and defense counsel do not contend otherwise.

Rogers v. Lilley

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

Richter is not a basis for habeas relief, however, because its holding is not “clearly established” precedent at the Supreme Court level. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Leslie v. … The phrase “word games” is not especially inflammatory, and Rogers cites no case to clearly establish that this line of argument — relatively common in summations from prosecutors and

Yador v. Mowatt

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

But “the mere fact that [a] document was marked confidential during discovery does not establish that sealing is required.” Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. … “Clearly, if the information is already available to competitors, then it does not qualify as confidential.” United Techs. Corp., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Grp. v. Marshall, 464 F. Supp. 845, 854 (D.

Morocho

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 11, 2026

Div. 2d Dep’t 2025) (“biomechanical experts are qualified to render opinions on causation”); Plate v. Palisade Film Delivery Corp., 835 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y. App. … “Whether an injury is ‘serious’ within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) is an inquiry distinct from whether the injury was caused by the accident, and a defendant need not establish a lack of one to establish, prima

PSEG Long Island LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

158 F. Supp. 3d 149 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 3, 2016

This rate is established by New York State statute, and is subject to recommendations by the New York State Department of Public Service and approval by the Authority’s Board of Trustees. … Andrew McCabe, the individual whose affidavit provides the vehicle for its submission to the Court, does not establish that he has personal knowledge of the authenticity of the letter.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of Navy

659 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 1987

The Joint DOE/DOD classification guide, however, clearly states that the information is considered classified under both EO 12356 and the Atomic Energy Act. … After the close of the public comment period but prior to publication of the FSEIS, it became known that freshwater wetlands qualifying for both state and federal protection exist on approximately Vz of the site.

Phelps v. Szubinski

577 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 23, 2008

Defendants also argue that defendant Szubinski is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, and that this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction as to all the state law claims. (Id. at 18-26.) … The Summary Judgment Standard The standard for granting summary judgment is well established.

Finkelshteyn v. Staten Island University Hospital

687 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2009

, 2007) (applying Title VII protections to claims of anti-Semitic conduct); (2) that apart from certain absences, SIUH does not contest Finkelshteyn’s adequate performance as a nurse; and that (3) his two-day suspension qualifies … To the contrary, rather than establishing sufficiently intolerable working conditions, the record clearly establishes that Finkelshteyn sought to return to work on a fulltime basis or, at the very least, as a per diem employee

Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n

859 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2012

ASIG should be aware of this possibility and have qualified push-back personnel available. Close coordination is essential for safe operation. Id. at TOGA_000012. … immunity must fail”); Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

Kelley v. Cinar Corp.

186 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2002

In the instant case, plaintiffs have clearly challenged the rule’s application. See Class Pis.' Opp. at 71-73. . … Panju's oral statements made during the Carson SPA negotiations are not clearly misleading.

Quartararo v. Fogg

679 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 9, 1988

John Sparling, who repeated this story to the grand jury, testified at trial under a grant of immunity for the crime of perjury with respect to his grand jury testimony (T. 583-85). … He admitted that he did not remember that the photographs had been admitted solely to establish the position of Pius’ body (EvkLHrg. 149-50).

Lipman v. Rodenbach

District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2020

If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), the Court does not need to make any further decision with respect to the motion to dismiss. … The facts alleged in the SAC are clearly part of the same transaction of events that gave rise to the Barber action.

In the Matter of the Complaint of Peconic Jet Ski, LLC v. The Estate of Lisa Margaritis

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2021

of such issues in Romero – would have enacted such a fundamental change to this well-established limit on removal jurisdiction without clearly stating such a purpose. … intention is clearly expressed.’”

Coleman v. Grand

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 2021

Harris, 774 F.3d 803, 809 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding Nevada anti-SLAPP law’s provisions on immunity from civil liability and fee-shifting substantive); Egiazaryan v. … [it] is not sufficient to establish actual malice.” Celle, 209 F.3d at 183.

Margaritis v. Peconic Jet Ski LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2021

of such issues in Romero – would have enacted such a fundamental change to this well-established limit on removal jurisdiction without clearly stating such a purpose. … intention is clearly expressed.’”