Case law

O'Diah v. Yogo Oasis

954 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 2013

To establish a prima facie case, an employee must show that: (1) he was within the protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment decision or discharge; and ( … Prima Facie Case O’Diah’s evidence clearly is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.

Town of New Windsor v. Ronan

329 F. Supp. 1286 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 12, 1971

The New York Legislature passed in April of this year, and amended in May, “An Act to authorize the establishment of an airport for the accommodation of domestic and international air travel and freight transport at Stewart … However that is decided, the second seems more clearly erroneous.

Rodriguez v. Margotta

71 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 27, 1999

Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff has failed to make a showing of harm sufficient to overcome summary judgment, it is not necessary to reach the question of whether Mr. … Margot-ta may be entitled to qualified immunity.

Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union, Local 95

837 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 1, 1993

The Third Circuit reversed with instructions to enter summary judgment unless the defendants could establish a qualified immunity defense. See id. at 758 , 107 S.Ct. at 2675 . … After further appeal of one of the constitutional claims to the Supreme Court, the District Court granted summary judgment for all the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. See id.

United States Ex Rel. Aloi v. Arnold

413 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 7, 1976

attack upon his state court conviction is that when under subpoena as a witness at a grand jury inquiry into a murder, upon the exercise of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, he was granted transactional immunity … In this case, the question evolved around what material was admissible to establish materiality even if it was also prejudicial.”

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Better Service Sewing Machine Co.

131 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 1955

by clear and convincing evidence the validity of its patent to qualify for the extraordinary relief sought in this motion. 1 Despite the excellent preparation of plaintiff’s case, on the basis of the pleadings, depositions … Even if the court feels from examination of the papers now before it that plaintiff will ultimately prevail after trial of the issues involved, the fact that its right at this stage is not clearly beyond dispute is sufficient

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

654 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2009

Michigan law required plaintiffs bringing an action to quiet title to specify “the facts establishing the superiority of [their] claim,” and Grable had sought to satisfy this element of its claim by establishing the “failure … In fact, previous drafts of both HERA and the Homes Act proposed more sweeping immunity for loan servicers, but Congress ultimately rejected this language in favor of the current text. See 154 Cong. Rec.

Taylor v. Mayone

599 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 1984

Defendant also asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Because the Court finds that plaintiff's claims are without merit, it does not address Hyatt’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 4 .

Talukder v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2023

“A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) [the defendant's] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Thus, “[a]lthough the facts at trial” or obtained prior to summary judgment might weigh in favor of finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, they “chose to press their qualified immunity defense at the

Gache v. Town of Harrison, NY

813 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1993

The second quoted passage from (a)(1), stated in the past tense, clearly implies violations that have already occurred. … Defendants argue that as governmental bodies, they are immune from the zoning ordinances they have enacted.

Basora v. City of Poughkeepsie

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2025

immunity grounds. … immunity”).

Mahoney v. Ortiz

645 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 1986

However, they clearly “regard” him as unfit for the job because of a potential for what they refer to as “nearly total incapacitation”. … The ultimate burden of proof, of course, remains with plaintiff to show that he is qualified. See Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761 , 775 (2d Cir.1981).

Barrer-Cohen v. Greenburgh Central School District

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 2019

In determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, courts consider “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violations of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established … Superintendent Chase, however, is not entitled to qualified immunity based on Plaintiff’s allegations.

Campbell v. City of Yonkers

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

262 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 16, 2003

Islamic Republic of Iran, 238 F.Supp.2d 222, 224 (D.D.C.2002) (finding that the facts were established by “clear and convincing evidence, which would have been sufficient to establish a prima-facie case in a contested proceeding … The closest applicable exception, government reports, clearly does not apply to a statement such as this. 21 .

Brown v. City of New York

869 F. Supp. 158 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1994

assistant architect when the City established an eligible list for this position beginning in December 1987; and (3) he was marked “not qualified” for a permanent civil service position as an assistant architect on or about … Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (“McDonnell Douglas ”) 14 Under this standard, the plaintiff must establish that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a job

A.I. Credit Corp. v. Government of Jamaica

666 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

Under New York law, “evidence of industry practice may not be used to vary the terms of a contract that clearly sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties.” Croce v. … Jamaica also "irrevocably waive[d] ... immunity in respect of its obligations under [the] Agreement-” Id. § 12.07(d). 2 .

Ste. Marie v. Eastern Railroad Ass'n

72 F.R.D. 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1976

Given these numbers, the test of numerosity is clearly met. Korn v. Franchard Corp., 456 F.2d 1206, 1209 (2d Cir. 1972); Local 246, Utility Workers Union of Am. v. Southern Cal. … Defendants cannot immunize hiring policies from class action attack by creating an appearance of divided responsibility.

Reiter v. United States

371 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 2005

be established with respect to each witness for whom immunity is requested. … One of the threshold requirements that the defendants must meet to establish that *461 a defense witness should be granted immunity- is a showing that the Government engaged in discriminatory use of immunity to gain a tactical

Shan Ming Wang v. Slattery

877 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 2, 1995

In order to qualify for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 , an applicant must establish that he “is unable or unwilling to return to [his country of origin] ... because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account … Since the January 1993 Final Rule clearly conferred substantive benefits upon asylum applicants, Judge Patterson held that it became effective without publication.