Case law

Demuth v. Chenango County Sheriff's Office

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 3, 2020

Defendant White explained both Defendants' inability to sign the documents, as they did not qualify as "authorized officers" for this purpose. See Dkt. No. 31-2 at ¶¶ 3–4. … immunity.

Cox v. New York State

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 4, 2023

IFP Application After review of plaintiffs renewed IFP application, the Court concludes that he financially qualifies to proceed without prepayment of this Court’s filing fee.’ … It is well-established that “[p]ro se submissions are reviewed with special solicitude, and ‘must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.”” Matheson v.

Plumbers, Pipefitters & Apprentices Local Union No. 112 Pension, Health & Educational & Apprenticeship Plans v. Mauro's Plumbing, Heating & Fire Suppression Inc.

84 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 2000

This testimony supports the conclusion that the Mauros established Northeast to circumvent the financial burdens imposed by the CBA. … Plaintiffs further assert that the five employees *353 referenced by Defendants were apprentices (they were not qualified as journeyman) rather than “non-Union” employees.

Puentes v. Union College

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 28, 2024

The Handbook contained a policy related to immunizations (“Immunization Policy”), requiring students “provide proof of immunization to measles, mumps, and rubella.” Id. ¶ 29. … The Immunization Policy specifies that students may receive an exemption from the immunization requirements “if a licensed physician or nurse practitioner certifies that such immunization is detrimental to the student’s

Inn at Saratoga Associates v. Federal Deposit Insurance

856 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 27, 1994

[is] insufficient to establish an obligation on the part of [a bank] which would meet the requirements of D’Oench.”)-, FSLIC v. … Gemini Management, 921 F.2d 241, 245 (9th Cir.1990) (“[The bank’s intent to loan funds] falls short of establishing that [it] was obligated to fund [the loan].

Zeltman v. Infinigy Solutions, LLC

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2024

A court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. … Plaintiff is clearly capable of testifying about his injuries and how they have impacted one or more major life activities, as required to prove his claim.

Johnson v. Astrue

748 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 26, 2010

The record does not clearly show that Plaintiffs hearing is not restorable by a hearing aide. Dr. … The ability to reason is too “vague [and] vocationally insignificant” to qualify as a skill. See Draegert v.

West v. Syracuse Police Department

District Court, N.D. New York · May 17, 2022

City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005); and (3) in any event, Defendants are protected from liability as a matter of law by the doctrine of qualified immunity, because no reasonable police officer would have believed … immunity).

Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Canny

900 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 14, 1995

Second, plaintiff has established that defendants’ leasing enterprise qualifies as a “trade or business” pursuant to MPPAA and more specifically, to the Internal Revenue Code regulations regarding “common control.” … Plaintiff clearly has made a determination of liability.

Thomas v. Town of Lloyd

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 11, 2024

doctrine of qualified immunity. See Simpson v. City of N.Y., 793 F.3d 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2015). … Therefore, plaintiff has 7 The Municipal Defendants do not raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense of the Officers’ conduct.

United States v. Waters

786 F. Supp. 1111 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 17, 1992

The government further contends that facts involved in Giardina and Hansel are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case at bar. … When defendant was involuntarily confined to the mental institution under § 9.27, he was clearly considered dangerous to society. See Project Release v.

Walker

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 29, 2025

. . . unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or there has been a valid abrogation of that immunity by Congress.” … Law § 101) (‘It is well established that the New York State Education Department is an agency of the State of New York, and thus an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity.”); see a/so Mamot v. Bd.

Smythe v. Supreme Lodge, K. P.

198 F. 967 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 23, 1912

grant warrants to members of the order of Knights of Pythias, duly qualified, upon proper application, for establishment of sections of the Endowment Rank, and to enact laws and regulations, of general application, to establish … It was a vested right, immune from ■change by amendment, in the absence of a specific reservation of power to amend in that particular.

Ruhlmann v. Smith

323 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 28, 2004

He also claimed that he was contemplating escape — clearly, his confinement was not occasioned by any comfort. … Because the jury's finding that Smith and Puglisi acted intentionally and/or recklessly is reasonably supported by the evidence, its finding with respect to qualified immunity— i.e., that they acted unreasonably in light

Onewest Bank, N.A. v. Conklin

310 F.R.D. 40 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 10, 2015

The Court has' “significant discretion” when deciding whether to grant a default judgment and may consider numerous factors in making the decision, “including whether the grounds for default judgment are clearly established … subject matter of this action, shall be hereby foreclosed; and Plaintiff shall reserve the right to any surplus; and the Court further ORDERS that the Referee’s acceptance of this appointment shall thereby certify that he is qualified

Doolittle v. Mutual Life Ins.

249 F. 491 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 11, 1918

Reynolds, and duly qualified as such. He has never closed the estate nor been discharged as such. In his schedules said George A. … Clearly the federal court does not have possession of the fund, and has not had it, and has made no decree concerning it.

Sector Enterprises, Inc. v. DiPalermo

779 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 26, 1991

To establish an equal protection claim, it is not enough to show “bad motive” on the part of the State. … Today’s ruling obviates the need to discuss issues relating to (1) defendants’ qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, and (2) ex-Commissioner Perales’s continuing status in this lawsuit.

EF Consulting LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp.

478 B.R. 546 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 12, 2012

In sum, the Line of Credit available for borrowing was measured as eighty-five percent (85%) of the receivables due from qualified accounts up to the $4 million maximum. … STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a bankruptcy court’s decision, a district court applies the clearly erroneous standard to conclusions of fact and de novo review to conclusions of law. In re Manville Forest Prods.

United States v. Chin Sing Quong

224 F. 752 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 2, 1915

Clearly Congress has the right to determine the quantity and character and quality of evidence that shall ’ be required to admit an alien person into the United States, or grant him a certificate of return after absence, … But, unless it does so, must not the court receive the, testimony of all qualified witnesses and give it the weight to which entitled?

Welch v. Bio-Reference Labortories, Inc.

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 1, 2019

any time if the court determines that. . . the action or appeal (i) 1s frivolous or malicious; (11) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (i111) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … ADA The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).