Case law

O'KEEFFE v. Bry

456 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 1978

To the contrary: for her part, Bry, testifying on deposition, clearly identified the writings on which her contract claims are based. … Letters by Downey — eight of the ten that are mentioned — do not qualify. At the very least, the statute of frauds requires a writing signed by the party to be charged. Crabtree v.

McNally v. Yarnall

764 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 1991

Qualified Privilege Yarnall’s statements that did not qualify for the absolute privilege under the Federal and the New York State Constitution may nonetheless be subject to the qualified privilege conferred by New York law … enjoy a qualified privilege under New York law.

Petersville Sleigh Ltd. v. Schmidt

124 F.R.D. 67 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 2, 1989

Accordingly it faces the threshold necessity of establishing a procedural status for its claims. … The Estate does not qualify as an intervenor of right because it cannot satisfy the second element: an interest in this action.

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

948 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 18, 1996

To qualify as a parody under the Court’s definition, however, the second work must comment upon or criticize the original copyrighted work. … Several courts have found that a work that is not referential to the copyrighted work does not qualify as a parody or a fair use. In Steinberg v.

Cortes v. City of New York

700 F. Supp. 2d 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that the various actions dating back to 2002 of which he complains comprised a hostile work environment encompassing the termination, however, his Title VII claim is not clearly time-barred … In order to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he suffered an adverse

Castellano v. United States

795 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 2011

Rather, the Loras state that Lara was speaking to Lara’s own attorney, who was present because Lara testified pursuant to a grant of testimonial immunity. … Even if the Second Circuit would have heard the claim, Castellano cannot establish that the omitted claim of ineffectiveness was clearly stronger than the issues Dunn did raise. See Morales v.

Robert D. v. Sobel

688 F. Supp. 861 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 4, 1988

To qualify for federal funding a state must afford handicapped children a free appropriate education and develop a plan to effect that policy. … Having declined to attend, the Commissioner should not thus be able to immunize himself from liability for attorney’s fees, and visit those fees on the District.

Bass Public Ltd. Co. v. Promus Companies Inc.

868 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1994

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge relied upon Article I, Section 1.2 of the Merger Agreement which provided that “the separate corporate existences of [Holiday] with all its rights, privileges, immunities, powers and franchises … (1) the privilege covers all communications between the attorney and client; and (2) the Polycast court's reference to communications pertaining to liability was only in the context of deciding whether the defendant had established

American Information Enterprises, Inc. v. Thornburgh

742 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 1990

The statute also provides a carrier with immunity for failing to restrict indecent speech, see 47 *1272 U.S.C. § 223(c)(2)(B); however, this immunity is insufficient to relieve the carrier from its role of actively classifying … Section 223(c)(2)(B) immunity is premised on "good faith” reliance on an IP's representation that its communications are not indecent.

Napoleoni v. Scully

932 F. Supp. 559 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 10, 1996

Although the complaint does not clearly indicate against whom this claim is brought, the plaintiffs deposition indicates that this claim is brought solely against defendant Scully. (Napoleoni Dep. at 29.) … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Julio & Sons Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

591 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2008

The claim for “Breach of Contract” falls clearly and unambiguously within the exclusion cited by defendant. … Given the Court’s holding above that it can consider plaintiffs documentation establishing that Glaser was elected as a director on February 15, 2007, the conclusion quickly follows that Glaser qualifies as a “future director

Italian Book Corp. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

458 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 6, 1978

This technical process, clearly intended for a coherent presentation of the news item, has no effect upon the application of the fair use doctrine. … Reversing, the five-man majority of the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments did not immunize defendant from liability for infringement of plaintiff’s state-law right of publicity, in circumstances where defendant

Drew v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

185 B.R. 139 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 1995

While the plaintiff clearly has demonstrated irreparable harm by virtue of the fact that the house in which she lives may be sold, the plaintiff cannot satisfy the second prong of the appropriate test for a preliminary injunction … Id. at 82-83 , 111 S.Ct. at 2153 (citations omitted); see also In re Weathers, 15 B.R. 945, 951 (Bankr.D.Kan.1981) (“This Court finds that the [Bankruptcy] Code was not designed to give debtors a head start by forever immunizing

United States v. Fall River Navigation Co.

285 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1968

It is true that practice in admiralty prior to the 1966 amendments was “extremely plastic” and was “not immune to some of the changes in procedure elsewhere.” Boston Ins. Co. v. … But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were never applied in admiralty where admiralty practice was “settled” or “established” to the contrary. United States v.

Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.

47 F.R.D. 334 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 1969

The facts in this case also establish that the preparation of the Brumbaugh opinion was induced by the issuance to UMM of the patent in question and the substantial likelihood that Weiss & Klau would be called upon to defend … As such, they are conventional exemplars of privileged communications immune against discovery.

Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Numerex Corp.

255 F.R.D. 98 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2008

Several principles are well established: First, it is beyond dispute that no attorney-client privilege arises unless an attorney-client relationship has been established. … Rather, Lowenstein bears the burden of establishing that particular communications are privileged.

Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff

718 F. Supp. 217 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 10, 1989

An investment in the Aquarius Companies constitute a security if it qualifies as an “investment contract,” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10). 17 *234 The Supreme Court has established a five-part test for determining … In this respect, the amended complaint is clearly sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Lundin v. Chubinsky

22 F. Supp. 132 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1938

At the first meeting of creditors of the bankrupt, the plaintiff was elected trustee, and duly qualified and has ever since acted in that capacity. … Beeler, 293 U.S. 367 , at page 377, 55 S.Ct. 230, 235 , 79 L.Ed. 433 , wrote: “We think that the exceptions thus established by the amending acts show clearly that it was the intent of the Congress that section 23b should

United States v. Silver

103 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 10, 2015

See Williams, 504 U.S. at 46 n. 6, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 , 6003 (establishing procedures for granting a witness immunity); § 1623 (criminalizing false declarations before grand jury); § 2515 (prohibiting … A better word choice, and one that more clearly conveys to the listener that the facts being relayed are merely allegations, would be: "Silver allegedly figured out how to monetize his position as Speaker of the Assembly

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. v. United States

159 F.R.D. 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 1995

Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether Section 2798 retroactively immunizes the United States from plaintiffs’ action. … Congress clearly meant to eliminate currently pending lawsuits, or it would not have given Section 2798 retroactive effect.