Case law

EBIN New York, Inc. v. SIC Enterprise, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2023

Given that Plaintiff’s CDLC is not inherently distinctive, the Court considers whether it otherwise qualifies as distinctive pursuant to the standards set forth in Abercrombie. … What these messages clearly show, however, is Defendant’s desire for Edge Booster to compete with Plaintiff’s product.

Caldarola v. Quick

568 F. Supp. 436 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 26, 1983

Petitioner did have at least one prior conviction which had resulted in a sentence for incarceration in excess of one year, and thus he qualified for sentencing as a predicate felony offender pursuant to the then-effective … He did, however, formally admit to a prior felony conviction, thus establishing the basis for sentencing as a predicate felony offender.

Koutlakis v. C P Grill Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 20, 2024

The Complaint alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendants, who, as noted above, qualify as “employers” within the meaning of the FLSA. … Given that plaintiff has already established coverage under the FLSA, to establish a minimum wage claim under the FLSA, plaintiff need only prove that defendant failed to pay the mandated minimum wage.

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Bryan

784 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 1992

Accordingly, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction in the Second Circuit, it is now well established that the movant must clearly establish the following required elements: “(1) irreparable harm or injury, and (2) either … Number one, we have clearly derived great financial benefit from the Estimacs product which amounts to I think millions of dollars which I think we will get into.

American Transit Insurance Company v. Bilyk

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 21, 2021

effective to appeal a judgment or order . . .when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.”); 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59or for relief under Rule 60listed as qualifying … Default judgment is thus warranted if plaintiff can establish their liability. II.

Heckstall v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 2023

The ALJ determined plaintiffs thyroid condition and hypertension did not qualify as severe impairments within the meaning of the statute. See AR 12. e Step Three. … Review of the record does not establish that the ALJ’s weighing of Dr.

Fabers v. Lamanna

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

“Clearly established federal law refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Howard v. … the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.

Weller v. NYU Langone Health System

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

This is consistent with established rules of statutory construction. … When legislators want to protect a putative whistleblower’s erroneous, but good-faith, reporting, they clearly know how to extend that margin of error around the protection they enact

Maslow v. Cuomo

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 11, 2021

The Plaintiffs’ amended complaint clearly alleges that New York State Election Law §§ 2-112 and 2-118 are unconstitutional “as applied” to plaintiffs. … Labatt Brewing Co., Ltd., 339 F.3d 101, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Kamerling, 295 F.3d at 214 (“To establish irreparable harm, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show that

N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc.

296 F. Supp. 3d 442 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2017

Given the likely total loss of its business, Plaintiff has established irreparable harm. See also Galvin v. … The Court recognizes that there may be cases where a by-law, rule, regulation or standard is so clearly anticompetitive on its face to warrant a finding of an "agreement" for purposes of Section 1.

Rubino v. Estate of Tommasa Betancourt

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 2023

They contend that this will make selling the Building difficult because “title companies will want to be sure that the seller is indeed qualified to convey the property.” (Id.) … Thus, the UPHPA clearly governs this partition action. Maspeth Place Corp., 2022 WL 22243, at *1 (citing RPAPL § 993(3)(b)). 2.

Josie Maran Cosmetics, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

The court noted that the defendants clearly “have no legal right to sell counterfeit products,” and thus “the nature of the declaration Plaintiffs seek in this case,” ie., “a □ court … Courts in this circuit have consistently held that “[t]o establish a claim for common law unfair competition, the plaintiff must state a Lanham Act claim coupled with a showing of bad faith or in- tent.”

Yu v. United States Department of Transportation

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2020

The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that you were very intoxicated. … The blood-alcohol test administered by Bahraini officials clearly shows an extreme level of intoxication on your part.

General Security, Inc. v. Commercial Fire & Security, Inc.

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

False designation claims are analyzed under the same standard as claims for trademark infringement, except that “Section 1125(a) protects unregistered marks if they would qualify for registration as trademarks … “Dilution by blurring refers to the gradual diminishment of a famous mark’s acquired ‘ability to clearly and unmistakably distinguish one source through unauthorized use.’” Coty Inc. v.

Gironda v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2023

evaluate and effectively supervise Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff’s complaints and relationships with the security guards and clerical staff; (3) the opening at the sixth-grade position; and (4) the fact that Plaintiff was qualified … Plaintiff further alleged that these events “create[d] a work atmosphere where a reasonable person would certainly find to be hostile to the point where it would clearly interfere with job performance,” (id. ¶ 103), and

United States v. McGriff

427 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 13, 2006

The Attorney General has established protocols to be followed at both stages. … The court was unable to determine the objective reasonableness of the notice at issue because “[t]he record d[id] not clearly reveal whether, at the instant the Death Notice was filed, a date existed on which Ferebe’s trial

Valdiviezo v. Shanley

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 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 … Here, the Kings County Supreme Court clearly and expressly stated that each of these claims was procedurally barred. Dkt. 7 at 1254.

Boateng v. BMW of North America, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 8, 2024

“Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Paredes, 176 F. … Evid. 702, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates

Chung v. Igloo Products Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 8, 2022

(citing Goshen, 98 N.Y.2d at 325)); Goshen, 98 N.Y.2d at 325 (“[T]o qualify as a prohibited act under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.”). … This is insufficient to establish fraudulent intent.

Andrade v. Cultural Care, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2023

Moreover, Defendant’s criminal allocution establishes he acted intentionally in installing a hidden camera and recording Plaintiff in her bedroom thereby establishing the second element of this claim. … For a corporate defendant to be liable for alleged discrimination under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, the defendant must qualify as the plaintiff’s “employer.” See Farmer v. Shake Shack Enters., LLC, 473 F.