Case law

Fanelli v. New York

200 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Under McDonnell Douglas and its progeny, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) she belonged to a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position she held or sought, and … Given that all of plaintiffs claims are dismissed, the Court need not address defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Fickling v. Com. of Australia

775 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 1991

Section 1605(a)(2) of the Act establishes an exception to immunity when the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in … Second, the conduct must qualify as “commercial activity” under the FSIA.

United States v. Sasson

334 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 13, 2004

The warrant would have issued as long as the information in the wiretap application that was tainted as to the Sas-sons was not critical to establishing probable cause as to Banda — clearly it was not. … Still, it proceeded to state in dictum, in even more sweeping terms, that testimony could only be compelled where complete transactional immunity had been provided: We are clearly of opinion that no statute which leaves the

B & a Marine Co., Inc. v. American Foreign Shipping Co.

831 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 1993

Sovereign immunity shields the Government, and its employees, from liability. … Thus, Marshall and AFS are clearly “employees of the United States.”

Dorcely v. Wyandanch Union Free School District

665 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that the individual defendants are all protected by the qualified immunity defense. … “The qualified immunity doctrine shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation

523 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 30, 2007

Specifically, the Court ruled that the training and skills he had clearly developed in his other research and writing about the relationship between aboriginal people and colonial governors qualified him to provided testimony … If the Tribe were a state, that would clearly be sufficient to waive the state’s sovereign immunity. We see no reason to treat the Tribe differently.

Brooklyn Law School v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

661 F. Supp. 445 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 29, 1987

His pleading alleges an intentional discrimination which certainly qualifies under the term “act at the direction of the insured” and such acts are specifically excluded. … These phrases in Suit (4) differ noticeably from the complaint in Suit (1), where Herrmann clearly accused his fellow professors of making defamatory statements.

Hyatt v. United States

968 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 1997

The Illinois Tort Immunity Act. … The first two elements have been clearly established.

Ackermann v. Doyle

43 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 1999

It also is entirely proper for this Court to take judicial notice of the actions taken in the related state and federal court actions “ ‘to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.’ ” Liberty Mutual Insurance … Prior to October 1996, it was established that a public official’s right to immunity, whether absolute or qualified, pertained only to claims for monetary damages. See, e.g., Pulliam v.

Borodin v. Ashcroft

136 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 21, 2001

Borodin contends that his unique background makes him uniquely qualified to bring the representatives of these two nations together, in a young and fragile Union. … immunity.

Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Wolins Pharmacal Corp.

326 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 5, 1971

Since 1962 over one hundred qualified pharmaceutical houses have bought meprobamate in powder form from plaintiff and twenty-three qualified pharmaceutical houses in the United States are now buying meprobamate from plaintiff … In addition, plaintiff argues, the defendant is establishing a foothold for- competition in the sales of meprobamate at a price level reflecting the expiration or non-existence of the patent.

Gallo v. Suffolk County Police Department

360 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 17, 2005

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, after which the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a factual question that must … If established, such conduct would qualify as a deficient investigation.

Jocks v. Tavernier

97 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 17, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, which, if proven shields government employees from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant Tavernier is therefore not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Greco v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 8, 2023

Aug. 14, 2009) (granting qualified immunity for alleged infringement of right to intimate association where “[t]here was no clearly established law in 2006 and 2007 protecting friendship . . . as a form of intimate association … To survive a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Doe v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Supreme Court precedent has parsed the qualified immunity doctrine into two components. First, “[t]o be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.”

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

77 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 15, 1999

To establish a prima facie claim of wrongful termination under this statute, as well as under New York State Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified … Moreover, Farrell does not allege that she was qualified for the job. Thus, she has not pleaded a prima facie case of wrongful termination based on discrimination. III.

Holland v. Rubin

460 F. Supp. 1051 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 14, 1978

First, so much of the complaint as seeks injunctive relief from further prosecution or action by the defendants in this case is clearly barred by the doctrine of Younger v. … In order to establish the liability of the defendant, plaintiff is required to make “a showing of some responsibility of the defendant” for the acts upon which his claim is based.

Credico v. New York State Board of Elections

751 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2010

The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit for injunctive relief against a state agency unless Congress has clearly abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has unequivocally waived its immunity. See McMillan *420 v. … As Judge Gleeson recently determined in McMillan, the Board of Elections is a state agency for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress has not clearly abrogated New York’s immunity and New York has not unequivocally

Woolfolk v. Michael Baldofsky

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2022

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 liability “if (1) his conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or (2) it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for the officer to believe that his conduct … did not violate a clearly established right.”

Granville Gold Trust-Switzerland v. Commissione Del Fullimento/InTer Change Bank

924 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 1996

Enzo Tognola in Locarno ... were sent as clearly expressed in the texts, exclusively on request and on behalf of plaintiff parties and not of a foreign court____ To them my view, too, was made known that a judgment, if any … , 127 L.Edüd 74 (1994) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the airplane of a United States partnership was detained in Nigeria, the financial loss to the United States partnership did not qualify