Case law

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.

Bell v. ArchCare Community Services, Inc.

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

June 28, 2024), report and recommendation (finding allegation that plaintiff “worked during his 30-minute lunch break every day” was “sufficient to conclude that this period did not qualify as a bona fide meal period”); … a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) (“Section 218”).

Trisvan v. Regal Entertainment Group

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 26, 2021

claim, [he] must clearly state the basis for doing so, including facts to support the amount in controversy.” (Id.) … 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

Qi v. Bayside Chicken Lovers Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2023

In addressing Defendants’ FLSA minimum wage arguments with respect to Zhao, Plaintiffs note that Zhao alleges that Defendants paid him $6 per hour, which “clearly showed that he is entitled to relief under FLSA and [he] … To qualify as a covered employee, an employee must be either (1) “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” (individual coverage) or (2) “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production

Howard v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2021

Howard herself established her ability to work during much of the period to be tolled. … testimony concerning the conduct of all three comparators—both at her own deposition and occasionally at the depositions she took—is clearly hearsay based on office rumors.

Nelipa

District Court, E.D. New York · May 5, 2026

Here, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Plaintiffs each authorized the transactions at issue via SMS. (Crouchelli Dep. at 186:4-14, 199:13-200:5, 242:12-18.) … “Class-wide issues predominate if resolution of some of the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy can be achieved through generalized proof, and if these particular issues

RVC Floor Decor, Ltd. v. Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 26, 2023

As to punitive damages, Defendant avers that the Court did not clearly articulate the relevant legal standard. (Id. at 12.) … ten categories of “bad faith” evidence which it contends are both legally sufficient: (1) “to support the element of bad faith under common law unfair competition”; and (2) “to qualify

Roberts v. Genting New York LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 12, 2021

A business enterprise with 100 or more full time employees qualifies as an “employer” under the federal WARN Act. 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1)(A). … Plaintiffs argue that, because the closure of the Aqueduct Buffet qualifies as a “plant closing” under the federal WARN Act and N.Y.

Parot

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2026

The plaintiffs argue that the Fund Defendants qualify as such. This argument proceeds by way of a tenuous syllogism. … June 10, 2024) (plaintiff must “clearly identify any deceptive acts distinct from the alleged . . . misstatements and omissions”).

Rivera v. Griffin

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

Goord, 263 F.3d 178, 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (the rule must be found in “clearly established Supreme Court precedent”); Delvalle v. … Because the trial court’s refusal to charge second- degree manslaughter did not violate “clearly established Federal law,” this claim does not survive the AEDPA’s strict standard of review

Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc.

193 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 21, 2016

Levis Motors, Inc., 179 F.3d 286, 295 (5th Cir.1999))); *166 Green, 179 F.3d at 295 (concluding that publicly available information, such as state license fee tables, did not qualify as "documents assigned” and noting that … GMAC, 160 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998) (holding that the plaintiffs could hot rely on "related loan documents” in order to establish assign-ee. liability). .

Jeremiah v. 5 Towns Jewish Times, Inc.

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

It is well established that plaintiff has the burden to prove damages and establish his entitlement to recovery. See Greyhound Exhibit Group, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. … However, in the instant case, defendant clearly did not conduct its due diligence. Indeed, plaintiffs argument is well taken.

Dorothy J. v. City of New York

749 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 11, 2010

Emergency records establish that the Barberi entered the slip 20 to 21 minutes after it allided with the maintenance pier. … While this may be sufficient to qualify for a salvage award, its success had a minimal effect on the overall outcome. 2.

Bower v. Walsh

703 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

In order ‘“[t]o qualify for such treatment, the petitioner must establish that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his petition on time, and that he acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period … House is clearly distinguishable from the instant cases. First, there is no new scientific evidence that raises doubts about any of the evidence used to convict Bower.

Villalba v. Houslanger & Associates, PLLC

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

Neither section “impl[ies] immunity for debt collection practices otherwise forbidden by the Act simply because those debt collection practices are directed at a consumer’s attorney.” Id. … By contrast, other provisions, such as Section 1692c, “explicitly refer[] to the ‘consumer’ and clearly and necessarily distinguish[] ‘consumers’ from ‘attorneys’ and other third parties.” Id.

Martinez v. Gutsy LLC

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

No federal agency has promulgated regulations that clearly define public accommodation for the purposes of the ADA in relation to the internet. … Examples of businesses open to the public: Retail stores and other sales or retail establishments; Banks; Hotels, inns, and motels; Hospitals and medical offices; Food and drink establishments; and Auditoriums

Ortiz v. Kijakazi

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

Iowa July 25, 2022) (“Congress did not qualify the use of ‘or’ with ‘either,’ which tends to indicate that the alternatives are mutually exclusive.”); Bernadette H. v. Comm’r of Soc. … Wehle, “Law and” the OLC’s Article II Immunity Memos, 32 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 1, 36-41 (2021).

Mondschein v. NY 101, INC.

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

(id) * The plaintiff does not clearly explain how seivice was improper, humiliating and embarrassing. In some circumstances, “affixing the summons tothe door” is acceptable. See N.Y. … “[G]iven the ‘generous’ construction of adverse employment actions,” Devore, 2017 WL 1034787, at *10, I find that most, if not all, of these actions qualify. See McDonough v. N.Y.C.

John v. Brooklyn Eye Center

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

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff “must show: (1) [s]he belonged to a protected class; (2) [s]he was qualified for the position … John’s termination from her employment clearly constitutes an adverse employment action. See Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 85 (2d Cir. 2015).