Case law

DiPiano v. The New York City Department of Education

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 15, 2025

Adverse Employment Actions It is undisputed that plaintiff belongs to a protected class and was qualified for her job. … Plaintiff has clearly produced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on the discrimination claims based on her gym teacher assignments.

Vega v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2021

However, if she was acting in her capacity as a un- ion official, her actions might not qualify as state actions. … However, that inference alone does not establish that Defendants themselves were the inform- ants.

Jin Dong Wang v. LW Restaurant, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 3d 241 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 2015

The Court will not, in deciding summary judgment, attempt to establish which meaning each party intended at each instance. 16 . … The Court does not rely on the Rule 56.1 statement alone in concluding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Jiang, Shen, or Zheng qualifies as an employer under the FLSA or NYLL. iii.

Telebeam Telecommunications Corp. v. City of New York

194 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 11, 2016

As discussed above, regulations that extend onto private property, or that restrict the development of a telecommunications network on private property, do not qualify as an effort to manage the rights of way. … But "unlike a company that merely creates the tunnels through which telecommunications wiring is snaked, [payphone operators) clearly provide actual telecommunications service by installing and maintaining public pay telephones

Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. v. Reich

28 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 7, 1998

Rowane didn’t know whether Lawrence Cohen reviewed the applicants in terms of whether they were qualified under the criteria. (Tr. 1115). Mr. … established.

Jimenez v. W&M Services Inc

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2025

a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 218(a); Opp’n at 16. … In an attempt to qualify Mayer as an employer, Plaintiff asserts that W&M and Mayer constituted a “single employer.” SAC ¶ 25; Opp’n at 29.

Champion v. CVS Albany, L.L.C.

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 3, 2023

While Plaintiff did not provide a response to Defendants’ ad damnum request, Plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars clearly identified that Plaintiff was seeking more than $75,000 in damages. … Plaintiff asserts that her July 4, 2022 mediation statement qualifies as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), and that, as such, Defendant knew, on July 4, 2022, that Plaintiff was claiming damages over $75,000

United Merchandise Wholesale, Inc. v. IFFCO, Inc.

51 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 15, 2014

Indeed, the only way that service on IFFCO may qualify as service on International is if IFFCO is either (1) an agent of International or (2) a “mere department” of International. See Jazini v. … In the Court’s view, this allegation is clearly sufficient to satisfy the fifth element of a fraud claim brought pursuant to New York State law.

Nevels

District Court, E.D. New York · May 21, 2026

Orlans, PC, 999 F.3d 432, 440 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the plaintiff’s injuries could not create standing “[b]ecause bare allegations of confusion and anxiety do not qualify as injuries in fact”). … Nevels claims she suffered an “informational injury” because ACS “failed to clearly disclose information required by statute and provided misleading instructions that interfered with [her] ability to exercise

Grant v. Racette

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 2, 2021

established Supreme Court precedent.” … Thus, Petitioner concludes that the Appellate Division’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established [f]ederal law” and, therefore, was not entitled to AEDPA

Gomez v. MDC Brooklyn Warden

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2025

Id.; see Shapiro, 478 F.2d at 905 (“The judge’s refusal to examine the credibility of the testimony and statements included in the translated material was clearly proper, since the declarants were not before him... … The doctrine of non-inquiry is a “firmly established principle that precludes courts from examining the procedures or treatment awaiting the surrendered fugitive in the requested jurisdiction” on the basis that the executive

Mikhaylov v. United States

29 F. Supp. 3d 260 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 7, 2014

] the protection of qualified immunity”) (emphasis in the original). 27 Similar claims, however, may not be brought against the United States, federal agencies, or, by the same token, federal agents in their official capacities … Feb. 13, 2008) (noting that "[f]acts supporting venue may be established through evidence outside of the pleadings,” where the plaintiffs were suing the DEA for various "acts and omissions” during its “seizure and forfeiture

Marchak v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

84 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2015

Merrill Lynch, 546 F.3d 1340, 1352 (11th Cir.2008) (finding that, where the defendant accepted investors’ monies for investment in securities, no actual purchase or sale need occur to qualify as a “covered security” under … Thus, the defendants established a sufficient connection between the material misrepresentation at the heart of the Madoff Securities fraud, and ultimate purchase of covered securities.

Jeffrey Farkas, M.D., LLC v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 1, 2026

The notice of IDR initiation must include, among other things, the preferred certified IDR entity, an “[a]ttestation that the items and services under dispute are qualified IDR items or services,” and a Qualifying Payment … The NSA directs the Government Departments to “establish by regulation” one IDR process and to “establish a process to certify (including to recertify) [IDR] entities.”

Mejia v. Ke Lai Xiang Number One Restaurant Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

“The question of whether a defendant qualifies as an enterprise under the FLSA is not a jurisdictional issue, but an element that a plaintiff must establish in order to prove liability.” Ying Ying Dai v. … The plaintiff’s meticulous record of his work hours, corroborated by his testimony, clearly establishes that his once-a-day meal breaks were typically 10 to 20 minutes, and almost never more than 25 minutes. (Pl.

Bahl v. New York Institute of Technology

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 20, 2024

Later that afternoon, Mary Ann Achtziger emailed Bahl and advised him that "you do not qualify for a medical leave of absence." Id. … In my view, the jury clearly got it right.

Hilsdorf v. Commissioner of Social Security

724 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 15, 2010

This would clearly limit the types of sedentary work Plaintiff could do. See Rosa v. … Once such inability to work is established, the claimant is relieved of his burden; he *356 need prove nothing more to establish disability.

Burke v. Dow Chemical Co.

797 F. Supp. 1128 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 16, 1992

These changes also established more substantial data requirements for registration, passed-on the cost of registration to applicants through registration fees and provided EPA with more authority to obtain data necessary … As a genera] rule, compliance with federal standards does not, in and of itself, immunize a manufacturer or retailer from state law tort liability. See Ferebee, 736 F.2d at 1542 .

Reid v. United States

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 15, 2020

could qualify as a disabled student for purposes of his MBA online studies. (Id. at 10.) On or about June 29, 2016, plaintiff received his MBA degree. (Id.) … FTCA Liability and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Under the FTCA, Congress “waived the sovereign immunity

Aronov v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 2025

Plaintiffs clearly seek more than $75,000 in this action. … It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court of the State of New York is as qualified to interpret state law as this Court.”).)