Case law

Jones-Khan v. Westbury Board Of Education-Pless Dickerson

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 31, 2022

Judge Seybert dismissed Plaintiff’s discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII and the ADEA because Plaintiff did not establish that she was qualified for her position and because her termination did not occur … This prong is clearly met as Plaintiff brought both actions and is the party against who res judicata is invoked.

Tarr v. Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.

958 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 11, 1997

State of New York Dep’t of Correctional Servs., 75 F.3d 825 , 829 n. 3 (2d Cir.1996) (doctrine of “qualified immunity” held irrelevant to Title VII claims because there is no individual liability under Title VII); Cook v. … It is both well-established and undisputed that New York is an “employment-at-will” state.

McTerrell v. Titus

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2023

. § 2254 to individuals in state custody if their state court proceedings: (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by … established federal law.

Mirza v. Amar

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 15, 2021

Mirza uses watered-down Botox for fillers clearly is a statement of opinion and not fact. … This is clearly someone with an axe to grind and I do not believe any reasonable reader could give her posts any credit.

Zsa Zsa Jewels, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 11, 2019

Nor did this or any other experiment establish that misuse of the reset feature was the actual cause of the fire. … Next, because Plaintiff has established that the incident was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect, “[D]efendant bears [the] burden of offering some ‘evidence in admissible form establishing

Hirsch v. Kairey

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 28, 2023

Thus, for the reasons already noted above, the statements in that affidavit were clearly made in connection with, and were relevant to, issues being litigated in both the Divorce … Kenny, 15 A.3d 300, 321 (N.J. 2011) (dismissing civil conspiracy claim where the plaintiff could not “establish that defendants committed an unlawful act or a wrong against him

RVC Floor Decor, Ltd. v. Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 7, 2023

On a motion in limine evidence should be excluded, “[o]nly when [it] is ‘clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” United States v. … April 16, 2014), confusion on the part of non-consumers is clearly irrelevant. See e.g., W.W.W. Pharm. Co., Inc. v.

Yerushalayim v. Liechtung

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 13, 2019

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 … “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Sharkey v.

United States v. Pugh

162 F. Supp. 3d 97 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 12, 2016

“The trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. … wife, via a stenographer, were not protected by the marital communications privilege, because “formally husband and wife may conveniently communicate without stenographic aid, and the privilege of holding their confidences immune

Quartararo v. Mantello

715 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 19, 1989

On the contrary, it was the equivalent of a promise of immunity. … Petitioner’s first confession here is clearly not "a 'guilty secret’ freely given in response to an unwarned but noncoercive question.”

Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 2023

And clearly it does not: the focus of the ’232 patent centers on the abrasion of skin via a solid crystalline agent propelled against the skin using a gas stream or liquid. … Edge plainly has no competent, admissible evidence that would establish that the Skinwave device contains a manifold.

Belvin v. Electchester Management, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 2020

The Second Circuit has explained that in determining whether a plaintiff was qualified for a position, he must establish “basic eligibility for the position at issue,” Au- licino, 580 F.3d at 81, and that “being ‘qualified … Mem. at ECF p. 17), such an allegation is clearly a misconstruction of Mr. Mayers’s testimony. Therefore, the court disregards this allegation. Shultz v.

Gray v. Lamanna

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 18, 2021

AEDPA permits reversal only if a state court’s legal conclusion is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 … 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.” Brown v.

Sackman v. Liggett Group, Inc.

167 F.R.D. 6 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 25, 1996

In support of their position, the Sackmans offer expert medical opinions which “clearly” state “that Mrs. … To qualify for such a tolling of the statute of limitations, the plaintiffs would have to establish that their delay in bringing their fraud claim was the result of their inability to acquire the relevant information to bring

Famiglietti v. New York City Department of Sanitation

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2024

And, the cases actually analyzing Title VII claims clearly state that a plaintiff’s beliefs are religious so long as the plaintiff “in his own scheme of things” believes that they are. Patrick, 745 F.2d at 157. … Tech., 464 F.3d 217, 225 (2d Cir. 2006) (termination qualifies as adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII claims); see also Corrales v. Montefiore Med.

Kulisz

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 19, 2026

A plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must also establish that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. … Second, “the conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bernstein

786 F. Supp. 170 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 10, 1992

Account 4 establishes as an offset certain unclaimed insurance funds due to FNMA that were on deposit at Guardian Bank and frozen by the FDIC. … The Receiver’s Application does not clearly explain how it arrived at this figure.

Porter v. Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2022

Porter to be at least minimally qualified for these positions, he did not believe Mr. Porter to be one of the more highly qualified applicants. Huntley A. Lawrence Dep. Pl.’s Ex. … To establish a prima facie case in the context of such a claim, Mr.

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. 21st Century Transport Co.

186 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2002

asserted that coverage should be provided by Rampart, Rutigli-ano’s insurer, because the tractor-trailers were being used in Rutigliano’s business at the time of the accidents, and therefore 21st Century, Haynes and Vaz qualified … Co. of Am., 234 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir.2000) (court saw “no reason not to apply New York law” where “[t]he parties have clearly, if tacitly, agreed that New York law governs this litigation” and “in light of the plaintiffs residence

Youngman v. Robert Bosch LLC

923 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2013

I do not think the delay here qualifies as inordinate, nor can I conclude, in light of the Complaint’s ambiguity concerning Charkiewicz’s residence, that the defendants have no satisfactory explanation for the delay. … Northeast Airlines, Inc., 373 F.2d 717, 722-24 (2d Cir.1967)). 6 The par *421 ty alleging domicile.has the burden to establish that allegation by clear and convincing evidence. See Bank of India v.