Case law

Bass v. Cayuga County

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

“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory … rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

Khan v. New York State Department of Health

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 27, 2026

Therefore, the Court will address the merits of those claims which are not clearly barred based on the dates included in the amended complaint. b. … These acts are too attenuated from his protected activity to establish a causal connection.

Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corporation

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 12, 2022

Saris, was inconsistent with earlier statements made by Plaintiffs' counsel," which fails to meet "the extraordinary burden of establishing fraud." Id. at 10. … Appx. 384, 386 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the defendant could not qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the defendant "submitted to the court's personal jurisdiction by participating in the litigation"); see also

Villie v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 25, 2022

Shapiro both qualify in that category. … I note that it is plaintiff's burden at step four to establish limitations that preclude past relevant work.

Pellegrino v. First Unum Life Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 1, 2021

The evidence also clearly supports the conclusion that plaintiff continues to suffer some degree of pain and limitation from his osteoarthritic hip and lower back problems. … But as with a medical diagnosis, a surgical recommendation does not itself establish a disability.

DR. DOE, M.D. v. Hochul

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 14, 2022

Supp. 2d 434, 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Mere cooperation with a state official or investigatory agency is insufficient to establish state action.”). … Even if the Court were to consider these extraneous facts on a motion to dismiss, they would not save plaintiffs’ claims.6 “Congress clearly expressed its will that a private Title VII suit can only follow after charges

Hawley v. OPWDD-Central NY DDSO

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 16, 2025

One of plaintiff’s co-workers “saw this clearly.” Am. Compl. ¶ 95. Plaintiff and her co-worker were “stunned” and “immediately stopped [their] meeting.” Id. Plaintiff reported Ms. … According to plaintiff, her co-worker “saw this clearly.” Id. ¶ 95. This left plaintiff and her co-worker “stunned” and they “immediately stopped [their] meeting.” Id. ¶ 95. Plaintiff reported the incident to Ms.

DiMartile v. Cuomo

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 7, 2020

Fifth, the County Defendants argue that a Section 1983 claims is not legally cognizable against Defendant Poloncarz because (a) he is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment related to claims against … Mazeau is not a medical doctor or an expert on pandemics or public health emergencies and therefore is not qualified to render her opinions. (Id. at 6-8.)

Batista Reyes v. Paul

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 1, 2023

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish a question of fact as to whether Defendant coerced Ms. … immunity

Wyman v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 22, 2020

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing disability at the first four steps. … However, this standard is a very deferential standard of review “ – even more so than the ‘clearly erroneous standard.’” Brault, 683 F.3d at 448.

Hill v. Soar Restaurants II LLC

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

“‘In order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that (1) [he] was within a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified for the position; (3) [he] was subject … Plaintiff has clearly alleged that his employment was terminated when Ms.

Canale v. Doe

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

1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to dismiss an IFP complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Thus, a Section 1983 claim requires a plaintiff to show (1) the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and its laws by (2) a person acting under the color of state law.

Blackshear v. Artus

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 16, 2019

Moreover, there is nothing in the record establishing that the court, which had the opportunity of observing and speaking with the juror firsthand, did not properly conclude that the juror was qualified to serve." … Because the "decision of the Appellate Division 'was [not] contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States' at the time

Easter v. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Prepaid Health Plan

217 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 15, 2016

Excellus argues that without the missing information, they cannot process the claims and cannot determine “whether any part of the services at-issue are ‘covered services’ under the Plan, [whether] the provider was qualified … The ERISA statute clearly allows a claim for failure to provide benefits against a Plan Administrator; however, the Court is aware of no precedent in this circuit where a Plan itself was found liable under this theory.

Guerrero v. Albany Med Health System

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 15, 2025

As discussed previously, Plaintiff established that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. This portion of the Court's analysis discusses the remaining elements of a failure to accommodate claim. 1. … To that end, although "[c]omplaints about conduct clearly prohibited by the statute need not mention discrimination or use particular language," a plaintiff must allege more than just "ambiguous complaints that do not

Keith

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2026

financially qualifies to proceed IFP.* Pursuant to this review, this Court must now assess the merits of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915; 1915A.4 ll. … if the court determines that .. . the action or appeal (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

DeWald v. Amsterdam Housing Authority

823 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 7, 1993

In Barbano, the Second Circuit found that a board improperly relied upon a discriminatory recommendation in deciding to hire a male job applicant over an arguably more qualified female. Id. … This is perhaps most clearly evidenced by the fact that if Moore had not attended the meetings, then he presumably would not be called as a witness.

United Community Bank, Inc. v. DPSG Enterprises, LLC

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

A "covered loan" under this Act includes loans guaranteed by Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, see id. at § 1112(a)(1)(A); and the parties agree that Defendants' Note with Plaintiff qualified as a "covered loan." … whether Plaintiff had a duty to notify Defendants in July 2020, when they closed their business, that SBA payments would no longer apply, because Plaintiff knew – based on Defendants' July 2020 letter – that Defendants clearly

Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) Alumni Corp. v. Colgate University

492 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 2, 2007

The Colgate Board of Trustees established a Task Force on Campus Culture composed of trustees, faculty members, students, and administrators. See id. at ¶ 4 . … For example, [ w]here the plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed relevant market that clearly

Bryant v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 31, 2020

Upon review of the Policy's terms, the damage to the building does not qualify as a "collapse" under the additional extension of coverage. … Upon review, Bryant has not established a triable issue of fact on the question of long-term water damage. Plaintiff's own engineer, Mr. Morse, testified that: Q.