Case law

Snead v. Burstein

635 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 30, 1986

The standard in the Second Circuit for injunctive relief “clearly calls for a showing of (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) the likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits … appointing officer may nominate a person to the state civil service department or municipal commission for non-competitive examination, and if such nominee shall be certified by such department or municipal commission as qualified

Turner v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

181 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 23, 2002

Summary Judgment The standard for summary judgment is well-established. … Additionally, suspension and termination from employment obviously qualify as an adverse action against Plaintiff.

Hone v. Cortland City School District

985 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 24, 1997

In Cornelius , the Supreme Court established a three-prong test for analyzing governmental restrictions on expressive activity. … The record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff has no cause of action based on intimate association.

Marcella v. Capital District Physicians Health Plan, Inc.

47 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 7, 1999

Defendant further argues that preemption is established as the law of the case and thus that the claims should be dismissed without further legal analysis. … Defendant argues that the preemption of Plaintiffs claims are established as the law of the *292 case and the action must therefore be dismissed.

Bannister

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 14, 2025

“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal.” Machicote v. … Lavine, 605 F.2d 638, 644-45 (2d Cir. 1979) (concluding that a county employee defendant was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment).

Abbott v. New York State Division of State Police

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

Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), when an official raises qualified immunity as a defense, the court must consider whether: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … Finally, like with Jennings, the Court need not address whether VanAuken is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v., 963 F.3d at 224. V.

Boss v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF BOILERMAKERS, ETC.

567 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 15, 1983

The named plaintiffs are residents of New York who claim to be qualified for referral as construction "boilermakers" under the terms of applicable labor agreements and who allege that they were denied employment for reasons … A considerable body of federal case law applying agency [1] principles to labor relations reflects the importance of "control" by establishing the rule that a local union is not an agent of the International if that local

Shannon v. Verizon New York, Inc.

519 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 5, 2007

That order states that “there can clearly be no claim of discrimination based on failure to accommodate a disability where there is no actual disability.” Keck, 10 F.Supp.2d at 198 . … As has already been established, “a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was discriminated against because he was regarded as disabled.” Order (Dkt. No. 54) at 11.

Bowling v. Jamison

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 13, 2020

Defendants seek summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the merits of Plaintiff's excessive force claim, and based on qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 27-18, Defs.’ … immunity.

Vannier v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Services

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 30, 2025

State governments and their agencies may not be sued in federal court unless they waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress validly abrogates that immunity. Panagopoulos v. … To establish a claim for gender discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: 1) they belonged to a protected class; 2) they were qualified for a position; 3) they suffered an adverse employment action

Dadaille v. Coxsackie Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2024

Nature of Action Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant Section 1983, which establishes a cause of action for "'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … Eleventh Amendment immunity is lost only if Congress unequivocally abrogates states' immunity or a state expressly consents to suit. Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 365-66 (2d Cir. 2009).

Robinson v. Purcell Construction Corp.

859 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 14, 2012

To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action … Plaintiff clearly satisfies the first two elements.

Ingraham v. Casey

District Court, N.D. New York · May 12, 2021

Nos. 7, 9, the undersigned determines that Plaintiffs qualify to proceed IFP for purposes of filing.1 1 Plaintiffs are advised that, despite being granted IFP status, they will still be required to pay any fees and costs … subjects . . . any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In re the Tax Liabilities of DOES

541 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 19, 1982

“[Clearly,] Congress did not expect the [IRS] to delay its investigation of suspicious or unusual circumstances until it had evidence of an actual violation. … In addition, since the herd is “used” by the same party after the investor acquires it, the IRS takes the position, based on Treasury Reg. § 1.48-3(a)(2)(i), that the investor does not qualify for investment credits. .

Anderson v. S.U.N.Y. Health Science Center

826 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 12, 1993

Anderson was well-qualified for such a position. Based upon this belief, she contacted him regarding employment while serving in her capacity as Interim Affirmative Action Officer for defendant. … The record clearly shows that when the plaintiff complained of DeGraft-Johnson’s actions, the employer took immediate steps. to remove Ms. DeGraff-Johnson from her supervisory capacity over plaintiff.

The People of the State of New York v. Parker

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 10, 2022

“Where, as here, jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal petition, it follows that the defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” … The state court prosecution that Defendant seeks to remove does not qualify for removal under either. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443(1)-(2).

Carroll v. United States

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 4, 2024

“It is well-settled that the United States is immune from suit except where congress, by specific statute, has waived sovereign immunity[.]’ Liffiton v. Keuker, 850 F.2d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Larson v. … Dec. 9, 2016) (“The doctrine of | Sovereign immunity bars federal courts from hearing all suits against the United States of America, except where sovereign immunity has been waived.”) (citing United States v.

Lee v. Finn

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 13, 2023

That is, to establish a defendant’s individual liability in a suit brought under § 1983, a plaintiff must show “the defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Grullon v. … Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83 (2d Cir. 1994), which are “protected only by qualified, rather than absolute, immunity,” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126 (1997). Here.

Flynn v. Anthony Mion & Sons, Inc.

275 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 29, 2003

Thus, defendant explicitly agreed to make payments into the IPF and the Trust Agreement clearly is incorporated into the CBAs. … Thus, there is no issue whether any of defendant’s employees could ever qualify under the terms of the “foreign” plans, thereby raising the potential that the traveling contractor’s clause violates section 302(c)(5). D.

Bush v. Raymond Corp., Inc.

954 F. Supp. 490 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 21, 1997

Plaintiff clearly asserts that the conduct was unwelcome. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 68 , 106 S.Ct. at 2406 . … Such a contention, clearly is insufficient to support a claim of gender discrimination based upon DeCintio v.