Case law

Alexander v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC

839 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 20, 2012

Therefore defendants have established that the failure to issue a stay would prejudice them. 4. … Thus, they have established they would be prejudiced should a stay be granted.

Spruill v. Voyant Beauty, LLC

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 30, 2020

To state a claim under Title VII, Plaintiff must establish (1) that he is a member of the protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the position, (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision, and (4) that … at establish a prima facie case of employment 8, 9.

Sripirom v. Rivers Casino and Resort

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 10, 2019

Since the return of the employment discrimination complaint forms and IFP Order strongly suggests Plaintiff moved without leaving a forwarding address with the Court, Magistrate Judge Baxter did not clearly err in recommending … Dismissal of Section 1983 Claim for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Section 1983 authorizes a right of action against a defendant who under color of state law violates a plaintiff's rights, privileges, or immunities secured

Emrit

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 14, 2026

Clinton; and (3) Defendant Burnett and Defendant Cherniavska have engaged in intentional infliction of emotional because the Report-Recommendation and Order was not a final order or judgment and the notice of appeal was clearly … states that "this proceeding involves a discussion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Fourth Amendment, and Privileges and Immunities

Allam v. Phillips

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 28, 2022

LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING INITIAL REVIEW OF A COMPLAINT Ordinarily, the finding that Plaintiff does not qualify for IFP status would end the Court’s discussion, and Plaintiff, in light of his pro se status … (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Hightower v. Veitch

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

The reason the Court rejects Defendant’s sixth argument is that treading onto the often-disputed ground of qualified immunity here would be unnecessary (given the lack of any underlying constitutional violation). … Third, Plaintiff’s claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution are also clearly without merit.

Yankee Bank for Finance & Savings v. Task Associates, Inc.

139 B.R. 71 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 30, 1992

The defendants contend that the Magistrate’s reliance on that document to establish a purchase price of $610,000.00 was “clearly erroneous” 12 because (1) there was no foundation for the receipt of that document as a business … Purchase Money Mortgage The record clearly establishes that there was a recorded purchase money mortgage 37 for $420,000.00. Ex. 46.

Gomez v. Cullen

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

Third, and finally, the Court agrees with Defendants that, because Plaintiff’s Objections contain no specific challenge to Magistrate Judge Stewart’s finding that Defendants Sorrell and Foster are entitled to qualified … immunity, that portion of the Report-Recommendation need be review for only clear error.

Hoffman v. CIBA VISION CORP.

436 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 7, 2006

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. … “To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show four things: (1) he is a member of the protected class; (2) he is qualified for his position; (3) he has suffered an adverse employment action;

Dacier v. Reardon

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 9, 2022

“However, even though the Complaint names Commissioner Reardon as the defendant, Plaintiff clearly attributes misconduct to DOL as an entity rather than Commissioner Reardon as his ultimate supervisor.” Dkt. … To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote under Title VII, a plaintiff ordinarily must demonstrate that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job

Harris v. Franziska Racker Centers, Inc.

340 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 1, 2004

Plaintiffs allegations do not establish hostile work environment harassment. … These injuries did not qualify as disabilities under the ADA.

Craft v. Village of Lake George

39 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 7, 2014

The Mayor was empowered to deny the application for a permit to solicit funds if, in his discretion, the applicant would not qualify for I.R.C. § 501(c) tax exempt status “or if [the] proposed solicitation would be likely … R.Civ.P. 56 is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its decision in Wagner v. Swarts, 827 F.Supp.2d 85, 92 (N.D.N.Y.2011), aff'd sub nom.

Daniels v. City of Binghamton

947 F. Supp. 590 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 20, 1996

A large part of the affidavits submitted on this motion clearly do not comport with these requirements. … To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States

Nicholas v. Seggos

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 19, 2023

New York empowers the “DEC to ‘establish standards and procedures for testing and licensing of guides’ by regulations.” Id. (quoting N.Y. Env’t Conserv. L. § 11-0533). … “As a general rule, state governments and their agencies may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or there has been a valid abrogation of that immunity by Congress.”

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Hoh

554 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 13, 1982

To remove these dangers, specific standards were established to assure that welfare funds would be established only for purposes which Congress considered proper and expended only for the purposes for which they were established … Geoghegan, supra, 403 F.2d at 116 (only employees and former employees may qualify as beneficiaries of a trust.

Wright v. McMann

321 F. Supp. 127 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 31, 1970

a physician specializing in psychiatry, eminent also in this field of study of prison confinement and its consequences, and Chief of the division of law and psychiatry at the Menninger Hospital and Foundation, training qualified … I find that these confinements to punitive segregation being unconstitutionally disproportionate in the beginning are linked clearly to the later violations in segregation.

Gatling v. West

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 5, 2020

The Supreme Court has clearly established that courts should apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard, not the “probable cause” standard, when evaluating an investigatory stop. Navarette v. … Because probable cause was established, Plaintiff has failed to establish all of the elements required for a claim of malicious prosecution.

New Hope Family Servs., Inc. v. Poole

387 F. Supp. 3d 194 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2019

The rule making documents and subsequent OCFS Information Letters clearly set forth the intent of section 421.3(d). … Such facts clearly fail to demonstrate a discriminatory purpose. In establishing discriminatory effect, a plaintiff is not "obligated to show a better treated, similarly situated group of individuals." Pyke v.

Strunk v. The State of New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 6, 2019

Clearly, Strunk is an experienced, active pro se litigant. … for relief against the non-immune defendants.

Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration

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

The petition argued that “OHA’s conclusion that, as a nonprofit, Crouse is not eligible for a PPP loan under the Act is clearly erroneous, as neither the Act nor any SBA regulations support that conclusion.” … Contrary to Law Plaintiff argues that under the CARES Act, a nonprofit may qualify for a PPP loan using the Alternative Size Standard, in addition to qualifying pursuant