Case law

State of NY v. Sullivan

802 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 6, 1992

Such an analysis revolves around establishing the validity of the audit process. … Clearly, the regulation is ambiguous in that it does not define under what circumstances a federal agency must accept or reject claimed adjustments by a state.

Axis Insurance Co. v. Stewart

198 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

The endorsement clearly states that it “modifies insurance provided under” the “Section I—Coverages” portion of the CGL Policy. See *13 Policy at 68-69. … See Stewart Reply at 3 ("Stewart is not relying upon the [PLL] coverage endorsement to establish coverage.” (emphasis in original)). .

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

101 F. Supp. 3d 202 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 22, 2015

Defendants then note that the relevant provisions of the Plan and Plaintiffs employment history are not in dispute; ten years of foundry service is explicitly required under the Plan in order to qualify for enhanced benefits … This fact is irrelevant, however, *211 because the Plan itself clearly does grant Defendants discretionary authority. See Tocker v.

Sunvestment Energy Group NY 64 LLC v. National Grid USA Services Co., Inc.

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 11, 2023

In contrast, the purpose of the contribution by a Qualifying Facility [under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978] to a utility is to permit the sale of power by the Qualifying Facility … ¶ 121), thus requiring Plaintiffs to establish that the interconnection payments at issue are not taxable as income to National Grid.

J.B. v. Onondaga County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 12, 2019

However, her damages claim is subject to unique defenses, such as qualified immunity, and is not typical of class members’ claims for injunctive relief. … established . . . right[s] to counsel and due process”); accord Wolfish v.

Bryant v. Miller

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

Clause claim on the grounds of qualified immunity; (10) that the Court not (at this time) dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Savage, Kaiser, and Bogardus arising from the alleged denial … Supp.2d 311, 312-13 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In this circuit, it is established law that a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that could have been

Conyers

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 23, 2026

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's IFP application and determines that he financially qualifies to proceed IFP.2 This Court must now assess the merits of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ … rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Hillman

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 6, 2026

Confinement is considered “privileged” if the arresting officer had probable cause or is otherwise protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Simpson v. City of N.Y., 793 F.3d 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2015). … A review of this exhibit clearly shows factual allegations that “one of the officers found a device on the ground belonging to claimant [who] was filming the incident. Id. at 3.

McManus v. Tetra Tech Construction, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 11, 2017

Third, Tetra Tech claims that McManus does not qualify as a “whistleblower” under § 78u-6(h) because he did not report his concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). … Neo@Ogilvy LLC, 801 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2015), which held that an-employee need not report to the ,SEC to qualify as a "whistle-blower” under § 78u-6(h), id. at 155.

Smithkline Beckman Corp. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.

591 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 2, 1984

Clearly, this is not the case as the majority of over-the-counter analgesics end in “RIN” or “IN”. … ECOTRIN is a suggestive mark with low consumer brand awareness and does not qualify as a strong and highly distinctive mark.

LTA Group, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

101 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 21, 2000

The Carmack Amendment Both defendants are subject to, and the matters in dispute are governed by, the Carmack Amendment which codifies a qualifying carrier’s liability for goods lost or damaged in shipment. … Clearly, Conrail had actual knowledge of the derailment and the fact that certain cargo was damaged—indeed, Conrail has admitted as much.

Karman v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 7, 2023

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's IFP application and determines that he financially qualifies to proceed IFP for the purpose of filing." … , unless such immunity is waived.”

Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin v. State of New York

85 F.R.D. 701 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 5, 1980

The class either as proposed by plaintiffs or the County defendants is clearly so numerous that joinder would be impracticable, if not actually impossible. … It is indeed unfortunate that the Oneida Indian Nation has found it necessary to resort to the courts for a resolution of its land claims rather than before the Indian Claims Commission, which was established to deal with

Murray v. County of Albany

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2025

Supp. 3d 369, 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) ("The Court need not, however, come to a decision on the merits of qualified immunity. … There exist genuine and material disputes of fact at this stage, including whether Defendant [] called Plaintiff a snitch, that preclude summary judgment based on qualified immunity"); Hill v.

In Re the Complaint of Oswego Barge Corp.

439 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 28, 1977

Even this relatively moderate position was established only over a strong dissent. States Steamship Company v. … The Court clearly considered Ohio Valley as an action in rem, with the bond as the substituted res.

Mehalick v. Stowell

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 2, 2024

Defendants argue, alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 27–28). 1. … immunity argument.

Torres v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 2020

Individual Defendants inasmuch as it is in the performance of their duties that there may be an ongoing violation of federal law.”). 8 Here, Torres clearly … App’x 724 (2d Cir. 2017) (“It is well-established that arguments may not be made for the first time in a reply brief.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

244 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 20, 2003

Applicability of § 1983 Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims must be dismissed against the Commission and the individual defendants in their official capacities due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … “[A]n enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).

Witherspoon v. Corey

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2025

Analysis Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 1983, which establishes a cause of action for "'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured … wrongdoers were acting outside the scope 16 of their employment effectively allows plaintiff to avoid the jurisdictional bar of Correction Law § 24 that clearly

Levine v. Elliot Landy & Landyvision, Inc.

832 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 30, 2011

The Second Circuit has recognized an exception to this rule when there is a qualifying predicate infringing act in the United States. Id. … Establishment v. Columbia Broad. Sys. Inc., 672 F.2d 1095 , 1105 (2d Cir.1982)).