Case law

Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 13, 2025

Additionally, Lead Counsel have established that they are qualified, experienced, and well able to litigate this case. … Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages and Maintaining Class Action The fourth, fifth, and sixth Grinnell factors, which address “the risks of establishing liability,” “the risks of establishing damages,” and “the

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.

Cayton v. Saul

District Court, N.D. New York · May 27, 2021

Cir. 2012), that this is an extremely deferential 20 standard; it is even more rigorous than the clearly erroneous 21 standard that lawyers are familiar with. … With regard to the second, the record doesn't 23 establish a history of widespread pain.

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.

Matott v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 31, 2022

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.

Pendell v. United States Secret Service

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

Additionally, the original FOIA request does not clearly include a request for things like search warrants or profiles for the relevant internet dating site, as it is not apparent that these items would have been extracted … Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 626 F.3d 678, 681-82 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the qualifier “if such disclosures could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law” in Exemption 7[E] does not apply to “techniques

Hamedallah ex rel. E.B. v. Astrue

876 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 25, 2012

Medical Records The medical record establishes that E.B. suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of an in útero stroke. … The Commissioner argues that E.B. does not meet either Listing because WISC-IV IQ testing established that E.B. *144 had a Ml scale IQ score of 78.

Rowland

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 28, 2026

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiffs’ IFP applications and determines that they financially qualify to proceed This Court must now assess the merits of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915; … Y.2004) (“It is well-established that criminal defense attorneys ... are not state actors for purposes of the state action requirement of § 1983.”).

Caswell

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 10, 2026

When a party seeks to introduce expert testimony, the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of … In any event, considering the record as a whole, Plaintiff has not established that there is any reason to believe that even if any of these evidentiary decisions were errors, that they would have been “clearly prejudicial

Montalvo v. The State of New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 2025

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must “show that 1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; 2) DOCCS is an entity subject to the acts … Supp. 3d 237, 254 (N.D.N.Y. 2023) (“[I]f Plaintiff fails to allege an actionable ADA violation at the outset, [ ] questions of sovereign immunity are irrelevant.”) (second alteration in original) (quoting Colon v.

Dushane v. Leeds Hose Co. 1

6 F. Supp. 3d 204 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 11, 2014

“Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes … Thus, because Leeds is a state actor under the public function test, it is a state actor even though, as Defendants correctly note, it would not so qualify under Lebrón. .The First Amendment protects public employees from

Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 18, 2019

Mar. 26, 2015) ("State agency physicians are qualified as experts in the evaluation of medical issues in disability claims. … Clearly, Dr. Ahn did not have an ongoing relationship with Plaintiff 19 at the time of her first visit.”)

Papa v. United States

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 30, 2021

Plaintiffs contend that the records clearly demonstrate an injury from the intubation. As such, they contend, the Court must deny the Defendant’s motion for failure to meet the burden of proof. … Irwin is both qualified and competent to testify and his Report admissible.” By itself, Dr.

Beckcom v. United States

584 F. Supp. 1471 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 1984

Baker qualified this statement, however, by testifying that this technique is considerably less helpful in young, premenopausal women such as Mrs. Beckcom. … As was explored above, such a recommendation was clearly erroneous and deviated from the appropriate standard of care and treatment that Dr. Bloomberg should have followed. 8 Having found that Dr.

Chery v. Conduent Education Services, LLC

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 18, 2020

Plaintiff alleged that Conduent’s delay caused him to miss out on “up to ten qualifying payments toward PSLF” and to pay “approximately $1,056.66 without any corresponding credit toward PSLF.” Id. at 35. … “Good cause exists when the party seeking protection demonstrates that ‘disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury.

Pidkaminy v. Astrue

919 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 22, 2013

A claimant’s statements about his condition, on their own, are not enough to establish disability. See id.; SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 , *1 (July 2, 1996). … SSR 96-6p notes that State agency medical and psychological consultants are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are experts in the evaluation of the medical issues in disability claims under the Act.

Hatala v. Saul

District Court, N.D. New York · May 26, 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.

Basso v. Willow Run Foods, Inc.

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 2022

Plaintiff clearly states that defendant fired him on July 20, 2020. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54-57. This is sufficient to allege an adverse employment action. See Davis, 804 F.3d at 235; see also Limauro v. Consol. … Moreover, although the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is normally asserted in an answer as an affirmative defense, it may be raised on a motion to dismiss where “the complaint itself establish[es] the circumstances

Maroney v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 6, 2020

As such, Plaintiff's obesity did not qualify as “severe” under the regulations. Id. … the RFC was insufficient to establish the particular limitations the ALJ assigned.

Kohlhaus v. Education Plus Corp.

District Court, N.D. New York · May 14, 2025

Rule 55 does not define “good cause,” but the Second Circuit has established three primary criteria for courts to consider. Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993). … Although the complained-of statement(s) must be “material and pertinent” to some matter before the court to qualify for this protection, Brown v.