Case law

Pagano

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 2026

-24, 130-31, 137-38, 144-45, 151-52, 158-59, 165-66, 172-73, 179-80. 5 As discussed more fully below, as relevant to determining the applicable minimum-wage rates, Plaintiffs do not state clearly … In addition, in order to qualify for the FLSA’s protections, a plaintiff must show either that the employees are “engaged in commerce,” or that the employer is an “enterprise engaged in commerce[.]” Jacobs v.

Snyder, M.D. v. Neurological Surgery Practice of Long Island, PLLC

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

Snyder apply for disability insurance and stated that he was “clearly disabled.” (Id. at ¶ 33.) This conduct is precisely what ERISA seeks to prevent. Dister, 859 F.2d at 1111. … Furthermore, the Tax Code clearly prevents plan participation once a 1042 election is made. See 26 U.S.C. § 409(n).

Extenet Systems, LLC. v. Village of Kings Point

District Court, E.D. New York · May 31, 2022

“a certification from a qualified engineer that the wireless facility will not emit a radiofrequency radiation or other frequency or transmission signal greater than approved by the Federal Communications … The Second Circuit has clearly stated that the TCA “precludes denying an application for a facility that is the least intrusive means for closing a significant gap in a remote user’s ability to

Gem Financial Service, Inc. v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 10, 2022

A party seeking to admit expert testimony under Rule 702 “must establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.” Kortright Capital Partners LP v. Investcorp Inv. Advisers Ltd., 392 F. … Here, plaintiff does not clearly argue that this Court should depart from the earlier decisions in this case or present “cogent or compelling reasons” for doing so. Ibid.

Clarke v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 13, 2020

At the first step, the plain- tiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) that she belonged to a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the employment position she held; ( … However, documentary evidence clearly shows that they were served on September 2, 2016 with Ms. Clarke’s verified complaint in which she states, “Respondents violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Watson v. Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 18, 2023

Clearly any such testimony would be hearsay and would be self-serving. … Armstrong testified, Petitioner clearly argued that his statements to Ms.

Proano v. Melrose Home Improvement Corp.

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

Defendants also did not provide Plaintiffs wage statements in accordance with Section 195(3) of 2 Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Complaint refer to “Plaintiff Delgado” but clearly refer to Mr. … Supp. 2d 666, 685–66 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding allegations that defendant was an “owner, partner, or manager” of plaintiff’s corporate employer was enough to qualify him as an FLSA and NYLL employer

Harrison v. Senkowski

247 F.R.D. 402 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 2008

According to the Shepherd court: “[w]e observe that the proceedings clearly resembled an evidentiary hearing, despite the district court’s unwillingness to categorize it as such, because the court placed [petitioner] under … Subsection (c) of Section 2254 Habeas Rule 8 provides that “[i]f an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an attorney to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. §

IME WatchDog, Inc. v. Gelardi

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

Here, none of the extrinsic material at issue clearly falls into any of the aforementioned exceptions. … Finally, the Former Owner Defendants have failed to establish prejudice. See Cnty. Vanlines Inc. v. Experian Info.

Halberg v. United Behavioral Health

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019

In general, language that establishes an objective standard does not reserve discretion, while language that establishes a subjective standard does.” … In other words, the mere fact that someone does not require twenty-four-hour monitoring does not in and of itself qualify them for residential care.

Murad

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

Those pleadings must establish a right of action to sue under the relevant statute. … In their opening brief, the Defendants clearly discuss their alternative ground for dismissing the Murad Plaintiffs’ aid- ing-and-abetting claims. (See Defs.’ Mot. at 23-24.)

Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

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

“In assessing a Rule 12(c) motion, the court ‘may consider all documents that qualify as part of the non-movant’s “pleading,” including (1) the complaint or answer, (2) documents attached to the pleading, (3) documents … In addition, district courts are also bound by the circuit court’s interpretation of state law, at least until the state’s highest court has clearly ruled otherwise or the federal appellate court has reconsidered.

Gross v. Royce

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

However, the Second Circuit has “clearly stated that the AEDPA limitations period will only be [equitably] tolled in ‘rare and exceptional circumstance[s].’” Bolarinwa v. … To qualify for equitable tolling, a habeas petitioner must establish “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”

White v. County of Suffolk

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

Specifically, it is beyond doubt that the items at issue are clearly ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function,’ insofar as it relates to the Court’s duty under Rule 11 to determine ‘whether the attorney has … “In addition to the common law right of access, there is also a qualified First Amendment right to access judicial documents.” Id. (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120).

Abruzzo Docg Inc. v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 15, 2021

(i) ensuring that all outdoor tables are at least six feet from any other table, patron, or pedestrian thoroughfare, or enacting physical barriers where social distancing is not feasible; (ii) clearly … egregiously’ misjoined”), and Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1360 (stating that not every misjoinder constitutes fraudulent misjoinder; only the attempts to join parties that are “so egregious as to constitute fraudulent joinder” will qualify

Veeraswamy

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 4, 2025

Although a pro se litigant is generally entitled to “special solicitude” before the district courts, they are not immune to the harshest discovery sanctions so long as a warning has been given that non- compliance can result … The Court clearly ordered Defendant to be present at the December 4, 2025 continued deposition and provided Defendant with multiple warnings about the potential sanctions for her failure to appear.

Calibuso v. Bank of America Corp.

299 F.R.D. 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2014

Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 556 F.2d 682, 686 (2d Cir.1977) (holding, in an antitrust class action, that, although “a settlement that authorizes the continuation of clearly illegal conduct cannot be approved, ... the alleged … The Ebbert court, in effect, recognized that Lundquist’s qualifications to render a “job analysis opinion,” like the one that the plaintiffs retained her to provide, were well-established.

Tringone v. New York State Office of Mental Health

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 15, 2021

The complaint did not clearly specify which claims were alleged against which defendant(s). Plaintiff later dismissed all claims against Godek and Iacobelli. ECF Nos. 62 (Iacobelli), 63 (Godek). … Nor does counseling qualify. See Tepperwien, 663 F.3d at 570-71 (employee counseling not actionable where it was not part of a progressive disciplinary process); Witkowich v. U.S.

Value Wholesale, Inc. v. KB Insurance Co. Ltd

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 2020

Value asserted that the complaint alleged a qualifying advertising injury, triggering KBIC’s duty to defend. (Id.) … Value avers, also without much focus on the Continental-specific time, that “it is clearly improper for KBIC to deduct anything other than ‘MedPlus Specific Time.’”

Achee v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream

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

Achee has therefore clearly met the objective standard for a hostile work environment. Defendants’ argument that the racist statements made to Mr. … Achee has established a prima facie case of retaliation. 2.