Case law

Hampton v. Wilkie

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 12, 2022

“Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Gorbea v. … Similarly, here, Plaintiff has not established, either through Schwartz or any qualified witness, that the letter was made and kept in the regular course of business, predicates for recognition as a business record.

Malichek v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 8, 2023

Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s Parkinson’s diagnosis qualified as a severe impairment. (Id.) … Here, the record clearly contained sufficient evidence from which the ALJ could assess Plaintiff’s RFC.

United States Postal Service v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp.

950 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 1997

On October 1,1986, the DEC issued a letter that established removal criteria for the lead and cadmium on the site. … The RAP, at 1-4, provided: NYSDEC issued a letter, dated October 1, 1986, that established certain requirements for the remedial action. The letter established removal criteria for the lead and cadmium.

Windbourne v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

479 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 11, 1979

In the Domangue case, plaintiff is the decedent’s widow who apparently qualified in Terrebonne, Louisiana as the tutrix of the only children of the decedent. … For they are attacking collaterally and without adducing any adequate reason a decree of court which we must accept as at least presumptively, if not conclusively, immune to such an attack.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc.

271 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 21, 2003

us regard guns in private hands as the scourge of our times, and favor government imposition of controls and punitive deterrence of all sorts, many others think of possession of firearms ... as the gift of the Founders, immune … Clearly, a legitimate state interest is furthered.... [Defendant] has faded to demonstrate that the burden here would be clearly excessive compared to the benefit.”).

WESTPORT MARINA, INC. v. Boulay

783 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2010

To qualify as an intended *350 third-party beneficiary, inter alia, “recognition of the beneficiary’s right to performance must be appropriate to effect the intention of the parties” to the contract. … The Distribution Agreement between Clean Seas and Dolphinite, for its part, denies any intention to establish a principal-agent relationship.

Porter v. Mooregroup Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 2021

Servs., Inc., 2017 WL 3738777, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (certifying overtime class where class could “clearly be ascertained by objective documentation, such as Defendants' employee … established.”

In re Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 16, 2021

The information that plaintiffs contend was not disclosed was clearly disclosed from the Company’s inception. … Here, the Company clearly disclosed the risk that the FDA could act against it and that the FDA had done so to other companies selling similar products.

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Ultimate One Distributing Corp.

176 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

Several defendants argue that plaintiffs’ “loss-control costs” do not qualify as actual damages and are only recoverable as part of an award of attorneys’ fees. (Baseline Opp. at 23-24; Elegant Opp. 17-21.) … The undisputed facts recounted above clearly establish that the Romero Defendants willfully infringed plaintiffs’ “Running Man” trademark, which was imprinted on the counterfeit bottle caps Romero delivered to Midwest.

Strzelecki v. Cunningham

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 15, 2019

“AEDPA establishes a deferential standard of review: ‘a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly … “The critical point is that relief is available under § 2254(d)(1)’s unreasonable application clause if, and only if, it is so obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could be

White v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 2024

presumption of access to documents that play no role in the performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery.”)2 “In addition to the common law right of access, there is also a qualified … Specifically, it is beyond doubt that the items at issue are clearly ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function,’ insofar as it relates to the Court’s duty under Rule 11 to determine ‘whether the attorney has

Rodriguez v. LaValley

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 7, 2019

established” at the time of the adjudication. ... … For federal habeas purposes, for sentences of a term of years, “the only relevant clearly established law amenable to the ‘contrary to’ or ‘unreasonable application of?

Banco Santander (Brasil), S.A. v. American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 21, 2020

Instead, American has substantiated its allegation by clearly articulating how disclosure could advantage its counterparties and competitors. … The Complaint and Exhibit A are subject to that qualified First Amendment right. See Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 139-40.

Diaz v. Silver

978 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 1997

Vera, 517 U.S. 952 , -, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 1951 , 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (plurality opinion). 14 Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion clearly established that “[f]or strict scrutiny to apply, the plaintiffs must prove that other … However, the fact that a district is compact does not immunize it from scrutiny. Compactness or its absence would not itself excuse racially motivated districting.

United States v. American Express Co.

88 F. Supp. 3d 143 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 19, 2015

Additionally, Plaintiffs have not clearly defined the contours of their proposed submarket. … Even the nation’s largest merchants are not immune to the effects of cardholder insistence.

Correa v. Collins

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 2025

Similarly, an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law occurs when a state court identifies the correct governing legal principle, but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the petitioner’s case. … Petitioner does not expressly argue that the state court’s harmless error ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Levitant v. City of New York Human Resources Administration

914 F. Supp. 2d 281 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2012

Lombardi provides nursing and medical services for sick and elderly individuals who are qualified to enter a nursing home, but prefer to remain in their homes. (Tr. 95-96.) … Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 904 (2d Cir.1970))); and (6) counsel told the jury to award $1 million in compensatory damages (Tr. 766) when such an award clearly was not supported by the evidence and he did not explain the grounds

Darden v. Suffolk County First Precinct

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2024

“To establish joint action, a plaintiff must show that the private citizen and the state official shared a common unlawful goal; the true state actor and the jointly acting private party must agree to deprive the plaintiff … Milford Hosp., Inc., 561 F.2d 427, 429 (2d Cir. 1977) (“Although the activities of [private hospital] are clearly ‘affected with a public interest’ the functions performed by it have not been ‘traditionally associated with

Edwards v. Chappius

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

T: 725-63 The court also qualified Dr. Fishkin, without objection, as “an expert in the area of eye care and treatment.” T: 717. … established” at the time of the adjudication. ...

DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc

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

June 4, 2015) (“[SPS] must qualify as a ‘debt collector,’ an issue which is not disputed in the present case.”); Jones v. … “[C]ourts have determined that the knowledge requirement under [S]ection 14-202(8) does not immunize debt collectors from liability for mistakes of law.