Case law

Alternative Electrodes, LLC v. Empi, Inc.

597 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2009

The Second Circuit has adopted several factors to consider in determining whether a plaintiff has overcome this presumption: whether the representations “were (1) clearly false, (2) clearly material, (3) clearly likely to … false, clearly material, and clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance.”

New York Youth Club v. Town of Smithtown

867 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2012

There, the court noted the well-established rule that age is not a suspect classification and thus applied rationale basis scrutiny to its equal protection analysis. … For enacting the subject Ordinance as town legislators, these defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.

Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co., Inc.

123 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 21, 2000

Defendants contend that summary judgment should be granted, inter alia, because individual defendants Roberts, Weinstein, and Walpert are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the Court need *100 not consider the issue of qualified immunity at this time.

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

429 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 27, 2006

The PLCAA, which was immediately effective, requires that a “qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment ... shall be immediately dismissed.” PLCAA § 3(b). … Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 144 , 123 S.Ct. 720 , 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003) (“statutes establishing eviden-tiary privileges must be construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for truth”) (citing St Regis Paper Co. v.

Gerber v. Forest View Center

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

The first of the four requirements is clearly not fulfilled, as “none of Plaintiff’s various claims . . . are affirmatively premised on the PREP Act, nor is the PREP Act an essential … Here, the “PREP Act is raised only as an immunity defense, and ‘the immunity question is not an element of [p]laintiffs’ state-law causes of action.’” Leroy, 554 F.

United States v. Pugh

717 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 2010

which rendered any money earned from the right of accession immune from taxation. … The idea of compensation for personal services or la *283 bor being immune from taxation was incorporated as part of our constitution in which common law immunities were federally protected under article IV Section 2 of the

Lewis v. Gross

663 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 1986

Clearly, her interests are not antagonistic to having these and other statuses established as examples of permanently residing in the U.S. under color of law.” … These reasonable estimates clearly indicate that the plaintiff class is so large that joinder would be impractical.

Turk v. McCarthy

661 F. Supp. 1526 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 10, 1987

William Tracy, the witness plaintiff has designated as his expert on police procedures for the actual trial of this case, testified at his deposition that the City’s procedures were adequate to provide the City with a body of qualified … Clearly, it was not execution of the custom, but [the police officer’s] possible abuse of the privilege, that inflicted the injury here. Thus, the city as an entity is not responsible under § 1983.

Bailey v. New York City Board of Education

536 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 2007

However, Lopez does not address whether the threat of loss of benefits establishes constructive discharge. … In light of this holding, the court declines to reach the issue of qualified immunity raised by the BOE in its submission,

Aponte v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center

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

are affirmatively premised on the PREP Act, nor is the PREP Act an essential element of any of Plaintiff’s claims,” the first of the four requirements is clearly not fulfilled. … Here, the “PREP Act is raised only as an immunity defense, and ‘the immunity question is not an element of [p]laintiffs’ state-law causes of action.’” Leroy, 554 F.

Fairbairn v. Board of Education

876 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 13, 1995

Accordingly, Fairbairn initially was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, that (1) she belonged to a protected class, (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which her employer sought applicants … Defendants' request for leave to amend their answer to assert the defense of qualified immunity, with respect to plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, is granted.

Transitional Services of New York for Long Island, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

91 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2015

In the alternative, the State argues that TSLI’s claims are procedurally barred under several doctrines of preclusion, abstention, and immunity. … See, e.g., Ball, 492 F.3d at 1108 (“individuals” refers to Medicaid recipients who qualify for benefits); Watson v.

Kalamaras v. County Of Nassau

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

Qualified Immunity “[A]n official is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right, (2) if that right was not clearly established … right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Carrabus v. Schneider

119 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 19, 2000

Rule 12(h)(2) and the accompanying advisory rule, however, clearly establish that a defense of failure to state a claim “may be made in any pleading” and thus expressly preserves this defense against waiver. … Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7 Plaintiffs’ next claim appears to be that the 1986 Consent Decree violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Lowenstein v. Rooney

401 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 31, 1975

He further questioned “whether the Tatum case might not be qualified today,” because of facts which came to light after the decision was rendered. 480 F.2d at 336-37 . In Handschu v. … The actions complained of by the plaintiff clearly were committed “under color of legal authority.”

Hubbard v. Long Island Railroad Co.

152 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 1957

It contended that it had adduced proof, through qualified medical experts, sufficient to establish that the plaintiff could be rehabilitated, and could be usefully and gainfully employed, and, hence, that the jury’s award … But the Delaney case, like the Conkey case, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the ease at bar.

Anderson v. National Grid, PLC

93 F. Supp. 3d 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2015

Prior the passage of the ADAAA, it was well settled that driving does not qualify as a major life activity. See Colwell, 158 F.3d at 643 ; see also Quintero v. … It would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction.”); Karmel v.

Brown v. Triboro Coach Corp.

153 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 2001

However, even assuming that this evidence would somehow constitute a prima facie case that Brown was dismissed because of his sleep apnea, he has not established a prima facie case because he was no longer qualified for his … Even if Brown had a qualifying disability and thus established a prima facie case of discrimination based upon disability, he must have been a “qualified individual with a disability” at the time he requested the reasonable

In Re Franklin Nat. Bank Securities Litigation

445 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 4, 1978

The United States is immune from suit for reasons of sovereign immunity except as it consents to be sued. The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. … While the United States does not argue what happened was wilful, the United States points out that *735 Neustadt clearly makes negligent misrepresentation part of this exception.

Figueroa v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 24, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials, like the defendant officers here, from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is available where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law.”