Case law

Intercontinental Container Transport Corp. v. New York Shipping Ass'n

312 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 1970

The basis of the complaint was that the NYSA, by refusing to handle containers stuffed and stripped by ICTC, was seeking to prevent newcomers such as ICTC from establishing or continuing to operate a stuffing and stripping … Thus no reason appears why plaintiff’s premises should not qualify as a “waterfront fa *570 cility" as that term is used in the General Cargo Agreement.

Rubio v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.

254 F. Supp. 2d 413 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2003

Rather, the EBAC is clearly the committee with the ultimate responsibility for plan interpretation. … While, by itself, the interpretation conveyed in the Haas Memo is not dispositive, as the Court has determined the document does not qualify as an SPD, it does clearly support the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ understanding

Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2020

immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue in the alternative that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Quarless v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center

228 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2002

This claim is (legally) undermined by the evidence adduced by Defendants which clearly establishes that no such position existed in the Human Resources Department at Bronx-Lebanon. See Def. Mem., Ex. … In addition, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that he requested a promotion to, and was qualified for, such a position. See Breland-Starling v.

Budd v. City University of New York, Baruch College

749 F. Supp. 86 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 15, 1990

The initial burden is on plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. … The record shows that 1) although plaintiff belongs to a protected class, she has failed to produce any evidence 2) that she ever formally applied for a promotion, 3) that she was qualified for the position, LaBeach v.

Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences International, Inc.

511 F. Supp. 2d 372 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 14, 2007

Sep. 21, 2006) (displacement of plaintiff from market leading to decline in provision of qualified services constitutes antitrust injury); Chapdelaine Corp. Secs. & Co. v. … Color printers are clearly not acceptable substitutes for replacement solid ink slicks.

Families for Freedom v. United States Customs & Border Protection

837 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 27, 2011

including the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine 24 “The test under Exemption 5 is whether the documents would be ‘routinely’ or ‘normally’ disclosed upon a showing of relevance.” 25 “Whether its immunity … from discovery is absolute or qualified, a [privileged] document cannot be said to be subject to ‘routine’ disclosure,” and thus is protected under Exemption 5. 26 “The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications

Hoepker v. Kruger

200 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 3, 2002

See 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A(a)(1)(A) & 104A(h)(2)(A) (Germany qualifies under this subsection). … Yet, mannequins and pencil sharpeners and other such products can also qualify as art, and museums sometimes collect and display them as such.

Stewart v. New York University

430 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 1976

Plaintiff challenges the Law School’s minority admissions policy, contending that it is unlawfully discriminatory since some of the applicants who were admitted to the September, 1974 entering class were less qualified than … It may mean an immunity from legal disability to own property or make a contract. . . .

In Re Dejay Stores, Inc.

220 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 1963

before the filing of the Chapter XI petition, justifies considering this case as one arising under § 321.” 7 The Referee’s Findings of Fact are not contested and the dispute involves only his legal conclusions to which the “clearly … will be disregarded and the court will determine and note the actual priority “where one day only is involved, and the rights of litigants depend on priority in time of two occurrences on that day, and the priority can be established

Johnson v. McMahon

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2019

This claim clearly challenges judicial conduct. It is therefore barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity and is dismissed on this basis. B. … Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussing “the well-established rule that a plaintiff cannot avoid the effects of res judicata by ‘splitting’ his claim into various suits, based on different legal

United States v. Largan

330 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 20, 1971

. § 3006A, contending that an effective defense to the charges in this ease is “based on facts that must be established in the Philippines.” 2 He argues: This case is rather unusual, since * * * it involves a man who is not … His decision is clearly predicated upon Rule 17 (b), FRCrP, which reads as follows: Defendants Unable to Pay.

Arrow, Edelstein & Gross, P.C. v. Rosco Productions, Inc.

581 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 29, 1984

The corporate defendants clearly benefited from plaintiff’s professional services. … Clearly, plaintiff has not and can not rely on any of these grounds to establish the personal liability of Rossington and Collins. 21 . The exact status of the corporate defendants has never been revealed to the Court.

Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Robert W. Baird & Co.

320 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 31, 2004

Instead, the error must be “plainly evident from the arbitration record,” Duferco, 333 F.3d at 388, such that it is “obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as … When the bases for the decision are not explained, the reviewing court must attempt to infer from the facts of the case whether the arbitrators appreciated and ignored a clearly governing legal principle. Id. at 12-13 .

Dunkin'Donuts Inc. v. Barr Donut, LLC.

242 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 2003

The franchise agreement clearly states that Barr had one day, not one year, to cure violations that were reported by Dun-kin.’ … Mar.4, 1986) (stating that “[a]t the outset, it should be noted that the federal government’s grant of immunity to [the defendant] in the prior criminal suit does not preclude the use of [the defendant’s] testimony to establish

Figueroa v. Dean

425 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2006

TTY Telephone Access DOCS and Wende policy on inmate access to TTY is clearly established. … The established policies of DOCS and Wende regarding interpreters closely track the language of the Consent Decree.

Glendora v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

893 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 1995

If joint action between state officials and Cablevision is established, state action may be present. … Selsky, 5 F.3d 616 (2d Cir.1993) ("Although the district court did not address the appellees’ claim that they were entitled to qualified immunity, we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, including grounds upon

United States v. Sherwood

175 F. Supp. 480 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1959

It was clearly stated both in open court and in conferences leading to the acceptance of the consent, that all of the Canadian Javelin Limited shares received by Robert Maurice Sherwood from Canadian Javelin Limited, the … From this, he argues that: “From such behavior, it is impossible to infer the intention to distribute, at the time of acquisition, that it is necessary under the Act to qualify Sherwood as an underwriter within the meaning

Harbour Trust Co. v. Aaron (In re PlusFunds Group, Inc.)

505 B.R. 419 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2014

Id. at 208 , Judge Peck also held that the Trustee did not establish one of the necessary grounds to reopen a case under Section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. … But a court only abuses its discretion when its factual findings were “clearly erroneous” or “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” See Zervos v.

Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC

101 F. Supp. 3d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 24, 2015

A dispute over an issue of material fact qualifies as genuine if the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. … That information would clearly have been relevant to Skyline.