Case law

Trisvan v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 17, 2020

dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis action if the Court determines it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … If Plaintiff intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over his state law claim, Plaintiff must clearly state the basis for doing so, including facts to support the amount in controversy.

Morris v. Flaig

511 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 2007

this oral agreement constituted a renewal of the lease, but defendants argue that it does not. 9 Although there is no requirement that a renewal under the RLPHRA be in writing and thus this oral agreement could potentially qualify … We wanted to [sic] very happy tenants again, and clearly price is part of that game. So that was why it was considerably under market rate for the triplex. (Tr. 651.)

Fugelsang v. The Department of Education of New York City

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

A plaintiff pleads a sufficient Title VII claim for employment discrimination on the basis of religion by alleging (1) that he “is a member of a protected class,” (2) that he “was qualified” for his position, (3) that he … Accordingly, even at this early stage, Defendant clearly would be able to establish an undue hardship warranting dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims. B.

Camali TV, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2024

As further explained below, Plaintiff’s proposed claim against Travelers for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing “clearly lack[s] merit,” which renders that proposed amendment futile. … “If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), then the court need not decide whether its absence warrants dismissal under Rule 19(b).” Id.

C.M.B. Productions, Inc. v. Kaisman

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

CMB’s false advertising claim, as stated in the amended complaint, appears to be a false association claim in disguise and, considered as such, clearly fails.9 See, e.g., Parks LLC v. … As established above, plaintiff’s alleged marks are not inherently distinctive, nor have any of them acquired secondary meaning.

Nixon v. Inquisitr, LTD.

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

Sept. 25, 2017) (“Plaintiff may not rely on a LinkedIn profile to establish jurisdiction, as such an online profile is hearsay and does not qualify as admissible evidence.”), aff’d sub nom … He clearly relies upon Defendant’s relationship with Miserandino, a New York resident, to suggest that Defendant transacts business in the state, but his allegation and arguments are inadequate

Brown v. City University of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2025

The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s state and local law claims as withdrawn, or to the extent that they were not withdrawn, as barred based on state sovereign immunity. (Id.) … To make out a prima facie case of discrimination at this stage of the litigation, a plaintiff must raise a genuine question of material fact “by showing that: ‘(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified

Crye Precision LLC v. Concealed Carrier LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 17, 2024

And once “separated from the uniform and applied in another medium,” these features “would qualify as two- dimensional works of art.” … This statement was false, according to Tacticon, because “MultiCam” is ”short for the descriptive phrase ‘multi-environment camouflage’” and therefore clearly “has significance

Adams v. 98-208 Para Realty Corp.

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

Plaintiff is a qualified individual with disabilities under the ADA. (/d.) Plaintiff was born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, and as a result, ambulates in a wheelchair. … Supp. 2d 83, 90 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (“[A] plaintiffs showing that he ‘live[s] in close proximity’ to the public accommodations he is challenging is clearly insufficient to establish standing.”).

United Specialty Insurance Company v. LIC Contracting, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 6, 2022

The 211 Defendants opposed the motions to seal, arguing that United Specialty and the LIC Defendants have failed to establish that these documents are privileged or protected by the common-interest doctrine, and that … The First Amendment right of access stems from the qualified right of the public and the press “to attend judicial proceedings and to access certain judicial documents.”

Saldarriaga

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2026

The fact that plaintiff was issued plates bearing those digits does not establish that the plates on plaintiff’s green car were valid. … The amended complaint also does not allege any acts by the officers besides contributing to the criminal complaint that could plausibly qualify as initiating criminal proceedings. See Manganiello v.

Gilbert v. Stony Brook University

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 10, 2022

Supp. 2d 656, 677–78 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (micromanagement does not qualify as an adverse 4 Gilbert’s claims under Title VII, Section 1983, and the NYSHRL are all analyzed under the same standard. Reyes v. … Gilbert clearly spoke on a matter of public concern. See Jackler v.

Gayot v. The People of The State of New York

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

A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a … The Court finds, based on the actual record that was before the state court, that Gayot has not established that the state courts’ decisions were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Quartararo v. Hanslmaier

28 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 30, 1998

Check, 582 F.2d 668, 681 (2d Cir.1978) (holding that “a witness’s prior statements offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein are not immunized from the proscriptive effect of the hearsay rule.... even if … Id. at 289 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . , Finally, these statements, as previously discussed, are not “clearly” self-incriminatory and are not “unquestionably” against his interest.

Andrea Doreen Ltd. v. Building Material Local Union 282

299 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 27, 2004

Moreover, Doreen concedes, in the Amended Complaint, that the Funds are qualified employee benefit plans under ERISA and that the monies received from Doreen were invested in the Funds. Am. Compl. ¶ 28. … Aulicino, 44 F.3d at 1112 ; Nafta, 932 F.Supp. at 427 (“Although a single scheme that is inherently terminable or acts that focus on a clearly defined, discrete and finite goal, generally cannot establish the threat of ongoing

Powers v. The Town Of East Hampton

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 20, 2025

Thus, once action under color of state law is established, claims for retaliation under Title VII and Section 1983 “must stand or fall together.” Sotolongo v. N.Y.S. … Metro. 13 Because plaintiff fails to plead a prima facie retaliation claim, the Court does not reach the individual defendants’ argument that they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Fink v. City of New York

129 F. Supp. 2d 511 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 1, 2001

DOCS also points out that Muller would be qualified to work as a security guard in an office building or as a guard at the smoke-free county jail. … “In short,” the court concluded, “her testimony fails to establish that she suffers *533 from any concrete emotional problems.” Id.

Sutton v. Royce

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 12, 2024

A petitioner's failure to comply with a state procedural rule qualifies as such an adequate and independent state ground, provided that (1) the state court actually "relied on the procedural bar as an independent basis … First, the state court rendering the judgment must "clearly and expressly state[] that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Whitley v.

Guevera

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 4, 2025

In the alternative, Guevera requests an immediate hearing requiring Freeport to establish its right to continue to possess the vehicle. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not qualify for the limited exception to the general rule that delay destroys a presumption of irreparable harm.”).

American Integrated Security Group Inc. v. Terra Sound Technology LLC

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

While AISG clearly lost business in Hawaii, it also alleges facts 8 See ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 6 (“To say, as Ferus does, that Clearway is not a New York customer because its main office is in San Francisco, CA, is like saying … “Common sense dictates that a company using information gathered in New York to wage war on another company’s New York business prospects would not be immune to being haled into a New York forum merely because it launched