Case law

Bloomfield v. Alvest SAS

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

Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2003).9 As an initial matter, it is not clearly established that a single employer theory can be used to establish jurisdiction or whether it is merely a theory of liability … “New York courts . . . have held that to qualify for jurisdiction under this subsection, a defendant’s act or omission [must have] occur[red] within the State.” Arzu v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 690 F.

United States v. Mayersohn

335 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 1971

If he passes both examinations, he thereby qualifies and his name is placed on a waiting list if there are no vacancies (571-572). … As soon as there is a vacancy a qualified person on the waiting list is called to appear at the unit and becomes a member thereof as soon as he is sworn in by a commissioned officer (588).

Aguirre v. Best Care Agency, Inc.

961 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2013

The article clearly indicates that it is based on Plaintiffs lawsuit. (Id. (stating “[i]n her lawsuit” and “the suit says”).) … In order to qualify for an H-1B visa, Plaintiff had to be a member of a specialty occupation. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b); see also 20 C.F.R. § 655.700 (a). .

Locascio v. United States

372 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 25, 2005

Cardinale proffered the testimony of a witness he sought to qualify as an expert who would give his opinion as to what should be heard of a word on an intercepted conversation. … LoCascio The relevance of this recitation to this motion is difficult to fathom beyond the implication that having decided post-trial motions adversely to LoCascio establishes my bias against him.

Walker v. Pitnell

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2020

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FDCPA Claims The FDCPA “establishes certain rights for consumers whose debts are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection.” … It would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)); Swiatkowski v.

Perkins v. New York City

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2019

“To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that there has been a denial of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation of such … Glennon, 757 F.2d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Clearly, a violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.”). 2.

Hyppolite v. Noem

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 6, 2025

Although his father was released after establishing that he was a U.S. citizen, Hyppolite was not. … For the reasons to follow, this Court agrees that Hyppolite’s detention violates his clearly established Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process and is therefore unconstitutional.

Gates

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2026

Under that framework, a plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered … Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The motive behind [plaintiff’s] firing in his retaliation claim is clearly a question of fact.

Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County

585 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 17, 2008

Therefore, Moses’ actions in 2002-2004 were clearly not permitted by Nationwide Permit No. 3 and 33 CFR § 330.3 . Id. at *3 . On appeal in, United States v. … In addition, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants have established that they not only qualify under the 1344(f)(1) exemption, but they do not come within the ensnaring “recapture” provision of Section

Monaco v. Hogan

576 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 2008

Lubit cannot be used to establish a due process violation because they are derived from a study described by the parties as the MacArthur Study. Comm’r Rep. 10. … Mayas, 984 F.2d 55, 57 (2d Cir.1993) (qualified immunity). 32 .

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 589, AFL-CIO v. Long Island Rail Road

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2025

While Plaintiff focuses on the wrong version of Rule 53 as an extra-contractual source of interpretation, the LIRR Chief Mechanical Officer’s report, because it is also not part of the CBA, arguably qualifies as a second … The Award clearly states that the Board held Defendant to a “substantial evidence” burden of proof. (Award, Dkt. 14-1, at 2–3.)

Topalian v. Hartford Life Insurance

945 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 2013

Rather, the insurer must demonstrate that the [Summary Plan Description] is part of the Plan, for example, by the [Summary Plan Description] clearly stating on its face that it is part of the Plan.' ” Id. … E.g., Thurber, 712 F.3d at 658-59 ("[T]he language contained in Aetna’s plan ... clearly reserves discretion to Aetna for determining participants’ eligibility for disability benefits.

Ronzoni

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 2026

adequate opportunity to present a defense, the proceeding ‘would be proper and immune from constitutional infirmity.’” … In their verdict notes, many voting members mentioned that Plaintiffs had clearly lied about their knowledge of drinking at the beach.

Looney v. Macy's Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 8, 2021

Carrajat’s testimony – according to Plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 Statement – shows that VSOs “were not trained escalator mechanics and were not qualified to perform inspections of the mechanics of the escalators.” … Carrajat’s testimony indicates that Macy’s’ employees “were not qualified to perform inspections of the mechanics of the escalators,” Pl.’s 56.1 ¶ 69 (emphasis added), and that Macy’s’ employees would have been unable to

City of New York v. Fleet General Insurance Group, Inc.

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

Nor does the Court’s order qualify as a sua sponte initiation of Rule 11 proceedings under Rule 11(c)(3). … True, the Court’s order does clearly convey its view that Fleet and its attorneys had potentially engaged in sanctionable conduct.

Solomon v. Siemens Industry, Inc.

8 F. Supp. 3d 261 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 26, 2014

. *278 Nov. 22, 2002) (dismissing a third party beneficiary claim because the parties had “clearly stated their intention not to benefit third parties” in their contract (emphasis in the original)). … Moreover, as discussed below, even if plaintiffs could establish the breach of a fiduciary duty, they could not establish that they suffered any damages as a result of the reallocation of the LLC’s losses.

Shanahan v. Town of Huntington

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2024

The Town’s interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 by alerting its employees to the diagnosis of their co-worker, Shanahan, qualifies as at least moderately strong. See Reply 1–2 (Dkt. #41-4); cf. Roman Cath. … Dec. 22, 2022) (affirming denial of leave to amend plaintiff’s “once-amended complaint” where plaintiff failed to establish “proposed amendments [that] would be able to cure the defects identified by the district court”

Guerrero v. DeMatteo

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

has been variously located in the First Amendment right to peti- tion for redress, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, section 2, and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Four- teenth Amendments.” … [establishes] that each of the backward-look- ing cases involved allegations of a cover-up by city or state officials.”).

Park v. Khims Market Inc

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 19, 2025

Thus, based on the allegations in the Complaint, plaintiff qualifies as an “employee” and Mr. Khim qualifies as his “employer” under the FLSA. … The allegations set forth in plaintiff’s Complaint, as outlined above, clearly establish that plaintiff was an employee of defendant Khim.

300 West End Ave. Associates Corp. v. Plymouth Rock Energy, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 15, 2024

Div. 2009) (“[I]t is a well-established principle of contract interpretation that specific provisions concerning an issue are controlling over general provisions[.]”). … Section 349-d(7) requires ESCOs to ensure that “all variable charges [] be clearly and conspicuously identified.”