Case law

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

Herron v. New York City Transit

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 5, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, Plaintiff must show that “1) he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; 2) he was qualified for his position; 3) he suffered an adverse … It shows forty-three instances of FMLA leave, which are clearly designated “FMLA.” Id.

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.”).

Saada v. Golan

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2024

When the Court ordered that B.A.S. be returned to Italy in August 2022, the evidence established that B.A.S. would not face a grave risk of harm if he were returned. … B.A.S.’s PTSD diagnosis increases the risk that he could develop “chronic illness, weakened immune system, relationship problems, substance abuse, and sleep disturbance.” (Id. at 37).

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.”

Tillman v. Grenadier Realty Corp.

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

“To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff with an age discrimination claim must show (1) that she was within the protected age group, (2) that she was qualified for the position, (3) … Plaintiff Has Failed to Establish a Prima Facie Case Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that a reasonable

Cobb v. Lee

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2022

Rather, only if a state court’s legal conclusion is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States . . . ”, 28 U.S.C. § … A state court decision involves “an unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court applies federal law to the facts of the case “in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Brown v.

Cabibi v. Colvin

50 F. Supp. 3d 213 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 28, 2014

Analytical Framework for Determining Disability To qualify for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A), a Plaintiff must establish her “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any … claimant’s claimed onset date be adopted if it is consistent with all the evidence available.”); Lichter, 814 F.2d at 434-36 (vacating the ALJ’s decision rejecting [the] plaintiffs alleged onset date because that date was “not clearly

Thorsen v. County of Nassau

722 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2010

In addition to obtaining political support, a candidate for the Director’s position had to be found qualified for the position by the Nassau County Civil Service Commission (the “Commission”). … Thorsen clearly possessed management experience within the Probation Department. (10/26 Tr. at 64, 68.)

Mohd v. Department of Homeland Security

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

. § 706(2)(A); (2) “contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” under APA Section 706(2)(B), 5 U.S.C. … that the State Department can revoke a visa at any time “for what [the Secretary of State] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” but argues that “good and sufficient cause” does not exist here, given that Defendants clearly

Castang v. Geimano

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

Sept. 18, 2019) (“the many challenges associated with life in prison do not, on their own, establish grounds for equitable tolling.”); Amante v. Walker, 268 F. … It a plaintiff is required to so plead in state court, it is clearly a state procedural requirement. I therefore reject the City’s argument.

Morangelli v. Chemed Corp.

922 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2013

They argue that nothing in the TCA establishes when technicians earn their wages. … Although styled as a motion to amend the class definitions, plaintiffs’ motion clearly seeks reconsideration of the Reconsideration Order.

Garcia

District Court, E.D. New York · May 28, 2026

Normally, an employer-defendant’s own records would establish whether it employed a plaintiff. … Moreover, the information sought is clearly relevant to defendants’ claim that they were never the plaintiffs’ employers.

Rhodes

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

Plaintiff’s § 1681e(b) and § 1681i(a) claims, Defendants argue that they must be dismissed because the purported inaccuracy is not a factual inaccuracy but a legal 4 Webster Dictionary defines “demonstrate” as: (1) “to show clearly … Thus, to the extent Defendants argue that the purported inaccuracy upon which Plaintiff relies is not sufficiently verifiable to be actionable when it asserts, “it is neither qualified or [sic] obligated to resolve” whether

Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC

893 F. Supp. 2d 474 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 17, 2012

It was charged by the Treasury Department that the New York branch of the Bank failed adequately to establish a system of controls to comply with federal banking law. … The impossibility of decision without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly calling for nonjudicial discretion; 4.

Angel Luis Rodriguez, Jr. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dealertrack Systems, Inc.

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

Under these standards, it is clear that not every element of a common law defamation claim must be established for the intangible injury of reputational harm conveyed by an inaccurate and misleading publication to establish … The intangible harm from the Dealertrack reports as well as Rodriguez’s resulting emotional distress and delay are clearly traceable to Dealertrack.?

Sylla v. Amazon Labor Union

District Court, E.D. New York · May 9, 2024

Amazon argues that there are “feasible, and clearly less burdensome, alternatives” to an AWA order because “the ALU has already shown that it is capable of communicating with current and former JFK8 employees without information … AWA Motion The AWA provides in its entirety: The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress

Cobham v. The New York Racing Association, Inc.

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

That is, “dismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements.” Temple v. Hudson View Owners Corp., 222 F. … For a class of one claim, Plaintiff “must establish that he and a comparator are prima facie identical.”

Sciortino

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

Doing so clearly shows that Plaintiffs’ claims are implausible. … A reasonable consumer therefore could not determine from the phrase “no dodgy ingredients” which ingredients qualify as “dodgy” or how that statement could be objectively verified.

Kappen v. Bell

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 2022

A federal court may grant relief where a state court adjudicated the habeas petitioner’s federal claim “on the merits” only where that adjudication was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Considering these facts, the Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in holding that Kappen’s second trial was not barred by double jeopardy.