Case law

Faistman Royce v. Sunny's Limousine Service, Inc.

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

Feb. 24, 2012) (“[T]he burden is on [a] plaintiff to establish service affirmatively.”). “Failure to prove service does not affect the validity of service. … He contends that “[D]efendant’s name is in fact clearly written next to the checked box” in the section reserved for service on organizations. (Id. at ECF 5.)

Chan v. Donahoe

63 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 4, 2014

that he was qualified for the position he held; (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent … Stray Remarks Insufficient to Establish Prima Facie Case “In the absence of a clearly demonstrated nexus to an adverse employment *294 action, stray workplace remarks are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.”

Ruvalcaba v. M.N.C. General Contractors Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2024

The person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization. … Per section 1(b), MNC does not qualify as an additional insured for their independent acts or omissions.

Khusenov v. Prokraft Inc.

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

Foley is a qualified expert, this Court concludes that Dr. … Foley opined that the stop button on the Meat Grinder is obstructed, not clearly visible, and not always within reach of the user. ECF No. 39-3 at 17–21 (Foley Report). As such, Dr.

Turano v. Zucker

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 8, 2019

In the Court’s view, this evidence suffices to establish numerosity. … These facts clearly establish his adequacy to represent the proposed class.

Masudi

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 21, 2025

He observed that the company was “well established, with 20 trucks running, employees on duty, and business that was well established and charming, as [Sher had] stated.” Jd. § 105. … These representations are not sufficient to establish a claim for fraud.

Haggar International Corp. v. United Co. for Food Industry Corp.

906 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 28, 2012

If thé Court finds that United’s “rights in the mark, vis-a-vis [Haggar’s] rights, [were] known by [Boulos] to be superior or clearly established, e.g., by court decree or prior agreement of the parties,” then it must find … At the very least, United’s claim “clearly ripened,” Audi AG v.

Dale v. Russell

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 13, 2025

A decision on the merits is “contrary to . . . clearly established” federal law if the state court (1) arrives at a conclusion opposite to one reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law; or (2) decides a case … A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct controlling legal principle announced by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applies that

Whitlock v. LaValley

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 8, 2019

established” at the time of the adjudication. ... … In any event, this branch of petitioner’s ineffectiveness claim would clearly fail the deficient performance prong of Strickland.

Walsh v. Versa Cret Contracting Company Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 23, 2023

Thus, it is Plaintiff who bears the burden to establish the existence and applicability of each privilege. … As to the law enforcement privilege, however, it is a qualified privilege which establishes a presumption against disclosure for information (1) pertaining to law enforcement techniques and procedures, (2) that

Morrow v. Capra

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

In such a case, “the federal court will focus its review on whether the state court’s ultimate decision was an ‘unreasonable application’ of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.” … This determination was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Strickland v.

Melo

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 10, 2026

App’x. 76, 76–77 (2d Cir. 2017)); see Guthrie, 349 F.R.D. at 68 (“Willfulness in the default judgment context looks to ‘egregious or deliberate conduct,’ and even ‘grossly negligent’ actions do not necessarily qualify.” … This partial defense approach recognizes that “while a plaintiff in a FLSA or NYLL case should not be compensated for his faithlessness, neither should the defendant-employer be immune from liability for its potentially

Morris Motel, LLC v. Dechance

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

But Section 85-883(B)(3) does not explain when a “front yard, side yard, or rear yard” qualifies as “nonconforming.” … Considering Section 85-883(B)(3)’s ambiguous language and the context of these surrounding sections, plaintiff’s construction of Section 85-883(B)(3) is not clearly dictated by the statutory language.

Chavez v. Roosevelt Tropical, Corp.

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

A court “possesses significant discretion” in granting a motion for default judgment, “including [determining] whether the grounds for default are clearly established.” Klideris v. … “As a restaurant worker, Plaintiff indisputably worked in the hospitality industry,” thus qualifying him for spread of hours wages. See Rowe, 2019 WL 4395158, at *8.

Watts v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.

579 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2008

Defendants do not dispute that the allegedly deceptive promotion and pricing practices cited in the complaint are consumer-oriented; they clearly are. … Intent Requirement Defendants also claim that the complaint failed to sufficiently establish their intent to commit fraud.

Coleman v. Noeth

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 14, 2020

O’Reilly further testified that the victim died from cardiac dysrhythmia or heart attack following blunt force injury to his head, torso, and extremities, with qualifying conditions of … A court may only issue such a writ if the state court adjudication (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal

31 Alanson Lane, LLC, and Matthew Vastola, on behalf of themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Town of Southampton, the Town Board of Southampton, comprised of: Jay Schneiderman – Supervisor, and Councilpersons John Bouvier, Rick Martel, Cyndi McNamara, and Tommy John Schiavoni, each in their official capacities, Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, comprised of: Scott M. Horowitz, William Pell IV, Edward J. Warner, Jr., Ann Welker, and William Parash, each in their official capacities

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2026

The Complaint clearly and explicitly pursues a number of Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals and entities under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Article 9 of New York … But Defendants have not shown that the marina here qualifies as a “Town water.”

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, Inc.

704 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 27, 2010

In all of the cases addressed by Plaintiffs, the courts found that a party was taking a position in a current litigation which was clearly inconsistent with a position previously asserted in another judicial or administrative … Lefler was not qualified to make in any event.” Def.'s 56.1 Counterst., ¶ 14.

North American Olive Oil Association v. D'Avolio Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2020

Even if NAOOA were able to establish standing to assert this claim, the complaint fails to state it. … Reviewing the complaint, there are clearly no allegations that suggest a palming off theory or that Defendants have misappropriated NAOOA’s property.

Farghaly v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 17, 2021

Finally, I decline to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it is subject to the same “genuine, material, factual disputes” as the excessive force claim. Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. … Moreover, because Officer Soto had probable cause to arrest Farghaly, he is, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim. Mangino v. Inc.