Case law

Janczuk v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2024

Sovereign immunity The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … The burden of establishing standing to sue rests with the party bringing the action. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

Zucker Ex Rel. Zucker v. Panitz

299 F. Supp. 102 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1969

In sum, defendants’ main factual argument is that the war is not a school-related activity, and therefore not qualified for news, editorial and advertising treatment. … Moreover, the paper includes letters to the editor, clearly a part of the journalistic experience which would be truncated were the newspaper merely a dummy. 2 . See also Kissinger v.

Curry v. Kim

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2023

To that point, it is well-settled that “New York has not waived its sovereign immunity in § 1983 lawsuits, nor has Congress abrogated the State’s immunity.” Phillips v. … immunity or the availability of declaratory relief.

Powell v. United States of America

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

Qualified Immunity Finally, Santos contends that Powell’s claims are barred by qualified immunity. See Def. Mem. at 19-20. … “Qualified immunity” “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages insofar as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission

430 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 4, 1977

Plaintiff is correct that in order to qualify for the protection of the work-product rule, it must be shown that the interviews were conducted, and the reports prepared, with an eye to litigation. … Were the government to submit an affidavit clearly establishing the purpose of all the interviews as being litigation oriented, it would be entitled to protection from disclosure under Exemption 5.

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N. A. v. Randell

485 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 1979

Although under the rule in a proper situation the District Judge may specify that his order be without prejudice, Judge Galston did not so qualify his order of dismissal.” … The court then said: “These remarks have been taken to establish the rule in this circuit that a dismissal on the ground of statute of limitations would bar a second action on the same claim in a different forum.

Greenfield v. Kanwit

546 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1982

Once a qualified privilege has been established, moreover, the burden of demonstrating malice is the plaintiff’s. Toker v. Poliak (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 211 , 219, 405 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 5, 376 N.E.2d 163 , 167. … Clearly there would be no claim of libel if defendant had typed the letter himself and handed it to plaintiff. So the claim, if any, must arise out of the publication to the secretary.

Allway Taxi, Inc. v. City of New York

340 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 10, 1972

Defendants show, however, that Gulf Oil Co. does have qualifying low-lead gasoline available and that it sells for one cent less per gallon than regular leaded gasoline. … We, therefore, reject defendants’ contention that the necessary jurisdictional amount cannot be established here.

United States v. Murgio

209 F. Supp. 3d 698 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2016

See Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, at 788 (“A sum of money or other liquid assets established for a specific purpose.” (emphasis added)). … The examples of “other assets” that Black’s provides—stocks, bonds, or working capital—are clearly broader than just “currency.”

Scalia v. United States

475 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 30, 1979

FECA Coverage The waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in the Tort Claims Act is not unlimited. … Plaintiff, however, does not fit clearly within the facts of these cases.

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Syron

934 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2013

Federal law, however, clearly distinguishes ■ between instrumentalities and independent establishments. … Unlike the phrase “independent establishment,” which was clearly meant as a term of art, see supra Section III.A, there is nothing to suggest that Section 17(a)(2) uses the term "obtain” in any manner other than its ordinary

Palmer v. City of Yonkers

22 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 2003

At approximately 5:00 a.m. on July 9,1996, Kim Palmer found her husband, Frank Palmer, who had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”), laying nude on the kitchen floor in his diarrhea feces conscious but with a fever … Board of Education, 87 N.Y.2d 370 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 971 , 663 N.E.2d 283 (1995), illustrates the differences between cases where the degree of control necessary to impute vicarious liability was established and the facts established

Clark v. Jewish Childcare Ass'n

96 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The remarks, therefore, are not clearly discriminatory and this factor weighs slightly against a finding of discriminatory intent. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs request to be transferred qualifies as a type of reasonable accommodation.

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner

198 F.R.D. 53 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 2000

In any event, however, no matter how these documents are viewed, none qualifies for the protection of the attorney client privilege, for at least three reasons. … establishes that RLM, far from serving the kind of “translator” function served by the accountant in Kovel, supra, is, at most, simply providing ordinary public relations advice so far as the documents here in question are

O'Sullivan v. Mundt

308 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 1969

jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: ****** “(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity … acting at all until a case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court was decided * * Finally, it must be observed that, even if the arguments stated above were not valid, the plaintiffs in this action have not met the test of establishing

El-Werfalli v. Smith

547 F. Supp. 152 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 1982

The grounds for petitioner’s exclusion suggested in this case are so general that they arguably fail to establish a reasoned basis for action. … That is clearly a correct position. See, e.g., Mehta v. INS, 574 P.2d 701, 705 (2d Cir. 1978).

Spence v. John or Jane Doe 1-10

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2022

The Court has reviewed thoroughly all of the parties’ submissions and, for the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity and … The Court grants Spence leave to provide facts specifying the wrongful conduct each individual defendant is alleged to have committed.5 Qualified Immunity

Costello v. NEW YORK STATE NURSES ASS'N

783 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 25, 2011

a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because she has not suffered an adverse employment action; (2) Costello cannot establish pretext; (3) Costello cannot establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment … Green.” 94 “Under this framework a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” 95 To do so, a plaintiff must show: “(1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2)[s]he was qualified for the position

Webcraft Technologies, Inc. v. McCaw

674 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 25, 1987

Webcraft is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the contacts list qualifies as a trade secret. … In view of her clearly established breach of fiduciary duty, I believe this correctly draws the line. It leaves her free to solicit the remainder of the universe of prospective customers.

Burka v. New York City Transit Authority

680 F. Supp. 590 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 1988

We hold today that section 504 protects only those otherwise qualified drug abusers who have been or are being rehabilitated. … Otherwise, this case will clearly require an extensive evidentiary hearing.