Case law

Brice v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

The plaintiff quarrels with the administrative law 10 judge's observation that plaintiff may have worked and 11 certainly sought work clearances during the relevant period. 12 That is clearly … Part of it was accepted and part rejected 15 and as the case law clearly establishes, there's no 16 obligation to either accept or reject an opinion, a medical 17 opinion in whole.

Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 26, 2025

that she financially qualifies to proceed IFP.* This Court must now assess the merits of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915; 1915A.3 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

Buczakowski v. 1199SEIU

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 4, 2019

Similarly, the ADA makes it illegal for unions to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(2), 12112(a). … A Breach of the DFR To establish a breach of the DFR, Plaintiff must demonstrate that SEIU’s behavior was “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Marquez, 525 U.S. at 44 (quoting Vaca, 386 U.S. at 190).

Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Boychuk

283 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 17, 2003

Therefore, because the infringement was knowing, willful, and deliberate, this case qualifies as “exceptional” and attorney’s fees are appropriate under the Lanham Act. 16 B. … establish a contract implied in fact ...”).

Kermani v. New York State Board of Elections

487 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 25, 2006

However, ... if the movant fails to clearly show a loss of Constitutional rights on the second prong of the preliminary injunction standard, the presumption is extinguished.”). … Furthermore, “[a]U the plaintiff must do to qualify as a prevailing party is to ‘obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought.’...

Arnold v. Town of Camillus, New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 26, 2024

"Deliberate indifference may be found both 'when the defendant's response to known discrimination 'is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances,' . . . and when remedial action only follows after 'a lengthy … Plaintiff asserts that she was treated differently than "less-qualified male officers." Dkt. No. 96 at ¶ 16. She does not explain how anyone was "less qualified." Id. Plaintiff was a police officer.

Blazquez v. City of Amsterdam

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 14, 2024

In opposition, Plaintiff refers only to qualified immunity, (Dkt. No. 54, at 8–9), which was not raised by Defendants. … Rather, “a plaintiff must establish that the defendants had an improper purpose in instigating the action,” and to establish an improper purpose, “it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to allege that the defendants were

Fiaschetti v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · May 19, 2022

“Ifa claimant’s impairment ‘manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely,’ such impairment does not qualify.” /d. (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)). … The applicable decision from the present appeal clearly references reliance upon David A.

Jordan v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · May 27, 2020

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing disability at the first four steps. … Clearly, the ALJ considered plaintiff’s ability to push and pull.

Oudekerk

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 2, 2026

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiffs IFP application and determines that he financially qualifies to proceed IFP.* Pursuant to this review, this Court must now assess the merits of plaintiff's complaint and … any time 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

Sutton v. Quinnipiac University

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 13, 2021

Defendant argues that the Complaint is devoid of facts showing Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability or that Defendant discriminated against him solely because of his disability. … [which] would clearly bar institution of a new action.”); Yurasov-Lichtenberg, 2016 WL 4544031, at *8. 30

Meadors v. Ulster County

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 29, 2022

Title VII hostile work environment claim, the Court denied Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and sustained the jury's verdict; however, the Court found that the jury's award of $200,000 in damages was "clearly … who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Bost v. CSCO Henson

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 26, 2025

Second, Bost’s Complaint cannot establish a procedural due process claim. Third, Bost’s Complaint cannot establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. … Jan. 22, 2018) (“The upshot is that the law of the Second Circuit does not recognize a clearly established right of married partners to engage in either in-person visitation or telephonic communication with one another while

United States v. Lilla

534 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 15, 1982

In a judicial proceeding to determine whether officers in fact acted reasonably and in good faith, the prosecuting body bears the initial burden of establishing “that procedures were established to minimize interception of … Yanthis seems to qualify as a “law enforcement officer” under this provision, see CPL § 700.05(6), he was a proper applicant to apply for amendments of the eavesdropping warrants and extension orders.

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

198 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 9, 2002

The Funds provide pension, hospital, medical, dental, death and disability benefits to qualified participants who satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements. See id. … Each of the Participation Agreements clearly states that [t]his Participation Agreement ... is the basis for participation in the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund.

Bradshaw v. Uhler

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 18, 2022

Although the Second Circuit has cautioned against "an overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations qualify for the exception," id. at 169-70 (quoting Andrews v. … Supp. 2d 280, 283 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) ("[The] [p]laintiff has not made a sufficient showing of imminent physical danger to qualify for the exception.

Wells v. Saratoga Hospital

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 4, 2025

The first pertinent question here is whether Plaintiff qualifies as a “public employee.” Plaintiff’s own allegations appear to suggest that he believes he does. (Dkt. … The alleged facts, while not clearly establishing Plaintiff as an employee of Defendant HVCC, do plausibly suggest that he was. See Odermatt, 694 F.

Drake v. Saul

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 17, 2019

Indeed, the ALJ’s failure to clearly differentiate between Dr. Loomis and Dr. … Plaintiff has not established further limitations than those included in the ALJ’s hypothetical question and RFC.

Carter v. New York State Correctional Officer McPherson

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

"[F]or a prisoner to qualify for the imminent danger exception, the danger must be present when he files his complaint–in other words, a three-strikes litigant is not excepted from the filing fee if he alleges a danger that … However, the New York Court of Appeals established a standard for evaluating the applicability of Section 208 in McCarthy v.

Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp.

85 F.R.D. 568 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 7, 1979

Subparagraph (2)(B) clearly limits the total recovery in a class action to the lesser of $500,000.00 or one percent of the creditor’s net worth. … In order for the drastic sanctions under section 358 to be imposed, the violation of section 353 must be “clearly within the plain intention of the statute” (Di Nome v.