Case law

101 Frost Street Associates, L.P. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 16, 2019

United States, 556 U.S. 599, 613–14 (2009) (discussing case law establishing joint and several liability under private causes of action under Section 107(a)(4)(B)). … The 2006 Action commenced by DEC clearly qualifies as a “civil action” under Section 113(f)(1) and Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Moving Defendants are potentially liable under Section 107(a) in the amended

Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc.

33 F. Supp. 3d 118 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 2014

He cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice but, if he elects to testify, an immunity from cross examination of the matters he himself put in dispute. … most inclined to disturb a jury’s verdict, based entirely or primarily on credibility, where one conflicting account is so inherently implausible as to tax credibility or there is independent evidence in the trial record clearly

U.S. Small Business Administration v. Feinsod

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

“While the proponent of expert testimony has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 are satisfied, ... … Additionally, he also concludes that the “entities were clearly insolvent and operating in the ‘Zone of Insolvency.’”

Government Employees Insurance Company v. MC Physical Therapy, P.C.

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

To qualify for reimbursement payments under the No-Fault law, a healthcare provider must comply with all applicable licensing requirements for performing covered services. Id. § 65-3.16(a)(12). … A court “possesses significant discretion” in granting a motion for default judgment, “including [determining] whether the grounds for default are clearly established…” Klideris v.

Walker v. Keiser

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

Walker during his plea allocution that he qualified as a “mandatory persistent” offender. (Id.) The State later filed a predicate statement setting forth Mr. … Under AEDPA, the reviewing court may grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal

Valencia Ex Rel. Franco v. Lee

123 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2000

Subsections (b), (c) and (d) quite clearly create no obligations like counseling. … Notably, she is not a medical doctor, and thus would not be qualified to render any opinion as to actual medical causation. 15 .

Durant v. Friends of Crown Heights Educational Centers, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 2020

June 4, 2018) (plaintiff “sufficiently alleged facts showing that he has a qualifying disability” where he “allege[d] that he suffers from degenerative disc disease with a disc protrusion displacing the S1 nerve” and that … As for plaintiff’s retaliation claim, her allegations fall short of establishing that defendants took adverse employment actions against her for pursuing a protected activity.

Norton v. Town of Islip

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 4, 2019

After initial dispositive motion practice, Plaintiff’s federal claims against the individual Town Defendants were dismissed on either absolute or qualified immunity grounds. … Finally, it is well-established that “[m]otions to compel are left to the court’s sound discretion.” Mirra v. Jordan, No. 13-cv-5519, 2016 WL 889683, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2016); see also Liberty Mut. Ins.

Gomez v. Griffin

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2021

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 … A decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law when a state court “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that

Rodriguez v. The County of Nassau

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

To maintain a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish that the conduct complained of: (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities … As explained infra, the record is clearly insufficient to establish that the County is liable for excessive force under Monell.

Golden v. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 9, 2021

Grecco has also met the second prong for “originality” because the Xena Photograph is clearly an example of portrait photog- raphy, reflecting the artistic choices of Grecco, its author. … Because Golden used the entire image, unaltered, this factor clearly favors Grecco. 4.

Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 2021

Where a contract includes “a termination clause [that] permits the parties to terminate [that] agreement at will,” New York courts “do not qualify an otherwise absolute power to terminate … Stature Electric, writing that “the parties clearly contemplated and rejected post termination commissions in their contract, and as a result, Plaintiff is foreclosed from asserting an unjust

Thorpe v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 6, 2024

“To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) []he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) []he was qualified for h[is] position; (3) []he suffered an adverse employment … true (not speculation),” but here, too, asserting that does not immunize the claim from pleading requirements. See Mot. at 15.

Hardy-Graham v. Southampton Police Department

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2022

immunity. … Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that equitable tolling is warranted. See Boos v.

Siracusa v. New Hyde Park-Garden City Union Free School District

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

As alleged, plaintiff advised District personnel “of his safety concerns” regarding Virex—clearly within his responsibilities as a teacher. … At the motion to dismiss stage, this is sufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case. See Heffernan v. Straub, 655 F.

Giordano v. Saks Incorporated

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 1, 2023

She had previously held positions at Gucci and Louis Vuitton and knew that she was qualified to earn a higher salary as well as commission. (Id. ¶¶ 108–110). … However, “[w]here the plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed relevant market that clearly

United States v. D.W.

198 F. Supp. 3d 18 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 28, 2016

He was qualified as an “expert on BOP practices and procedures, particularly, as applied to threats to inmates, investigations, and the use of protective measures.” … This was “sufficient to establish that [the defendant] was unusually susceptible to prison abuse.” Id.

Sanders-Peay v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2024

That argument is a non-starter: Plaintiff clearly indicated in her complaints that she believed she had experienced race discrimination, and, in at least one instance, provided details about alleged discrimination. … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must provide evidence from which a jury could conclude “(1) that she was within the protected age group, (2) that she was qualified for the position

Travis v. Navient Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2020

Navient neither told her that she might qualify for IDR nor inquired as to whether her disability was total and permanent. (Id.) … However, Navient has not cited to any portion of that agreement which clearly evidences an intent to permit enforcement by borrowers.

Fowler-Washington v. The City of New York

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

Supp. 2d 504, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying New York qualified immunity to defendants on summary judgment where they allegedly deliberately fabricated evidence against plaintiff to have probable … Apr. 21, 2017) (“Because a malicious prosecution claim brought under § 1983 is grounded in the Fourth Amendment . . . the plaintiff must also establish . . .