Case law

Amen v. Giuffre

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 2022

In addition, a producing person may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for the purpose of establishing the basis … claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of such claim. 25.

CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 22, 2022

Additionally, a qualified privilege attaches to statements made in anticipation of litigation, prohibiting liability unless the statements “were not pertinent to a good faith anticipated … See, e.g., Herzfeld & Stern, 572 N.Y.S.2d at 685 (proceedings before the New York Stock Exchange were quasi-judicial because Federal law “established a comprehensive system of oversight

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Thomas

713 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 6, 1988

Either of these grounds, if clearly established, could serve as a basis for summary judgment. Dr. Thomas raises several issues which, if proven at trial, could defeat National Union’s claims. Specifically, Dr. … Clearly, Dr. Thomas is not barred from amending his answer pursuant to Rule 15 if he requests and is given leave to do so.

Urquhart v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

975 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2013

Defendants allege that Wendel, who had more seniority than Urquhart, was uniquely qualified for these projects because of his technology-related training and expertise. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 34; Flanagan Decl. ¶ 4.) … To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) participation in a protected activity; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

116 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 6, 2000

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Conn., 936 F.2d 98, 103 (plan provisions relied on by Blue Cross did not establish that is was granted discretionary authority to construe plan terms); see, e.g., Jones v. … The accompanying regulations require that benefit plans include: a statement clearly identifying circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial, loss, forfeiture or suspension of any benefits

Cook v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

647 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 20, 1986

The evidence establishes that Pan Am did not make any study or survey concerning ADEA implications. … While the Arbitrator’s Award clearly diluted the pre-merger seniority rights of some Pan Am pilots, it was not facially obvious that the rights of older pilots were affected. 7 .

Southern Boulevard, Inc. v. Martin Paint Stores (In Re Martin Paint Stores)

207 B.R. 57 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 12, 1997

Neither of these “interests” *62 suffices to establish standing. … As to the second “interest,” Persuasion cannot establish standing by “raising another person’s legal rights.” Id.

Marinen v. City of New York

167 F. Supp. 3d 472 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 1, 2016

Plaintiffs needed only establish that they were disabled or perceived as disabled. … While it is “unnecessary to show actual malice to qualify for a punitive award, [the] intent standard, at a minimum, require[s] recklessness in its subjective form.”

Saenger v. Montefiore Medical Center

706 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action … Saenger was qualified for his position. {See Def.’s Mem. 1.) 7 Third, Dr. Saenger suffered adverse employment action when he was demoted and terminated.

Duttle v. Bandler & Kass

127 F.R.D. 46 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 1989

Lastly, the defendants argue that they would have established that Tueckmantel was employed by Belle in 1978. … Finally, a few of the documents do qualify as privileged. Each category will be considered in turn. 1.

Bergrin v. United States of America

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

Ruling on such motions are also clearly within the judicial function. … Dimella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 621 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of claims against a judge, who was “clearly entitled to judicial immunity”);see also DeJesus-Vasquez v.

Grant v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of New York

638 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1986

The critical shortfall was that plaintiff failed to establish that she was qualified for an available position. … To satisfy this intermediate burden, the defendant must "clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for plaintiffs rejection.”

Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Assoc.

947 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 12, 1996

George, there is no indication that the hotel was alleging injury on its own behalf but was clearly trying to bring the claim on behalf of its black and latino HIV and AIDS infected tenants, the direct victims of the alleged … Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 , 113 S.Ct. 753 , 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993), held that opposition to abortion does not qualify as a class-based invidiously discriminatory animus for purposes of a private conspiracy

City of New York v. Anglebrook Ltd. Partnership

891 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 14, 1995

SGA’s erosion and sediment measures clearly fall within the Guidelines of the General Permit. … The City claims that biofilters do not qualify as primary structures for first flush runoff.

Wright v. Rockefeller

211 F. Supp. 460 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 26, 1962

States and to declare unconstitutional that portion 0f the State statute in question which deprives the plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities”. … However, in this case the proof adduced falls far short of establishing that contention.

Savage v. Kibbee

426 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 11, 1976

The claim to Eleventh Amendment immunity is without merit. This is not an action against the Board of Higher Education (“Board”). … Clearly defendant Schneewind cannot have discriminated against the plaintiff at the time in question. As to him, then, there can be no individual liability.

United States Plywood Corp. v. Hudson Lumber Co.

127 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 1954

If reformation is still available to Hudson, upon the facts here presented there clearly is a triable issue on the question. … Many of them are clearly equivocal and ambiguous.

Peng-Fei Si v. Slattery

864 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1994

In contrast, the Bureau’s internal operations manual in Morton , which directed that all eligibility requirements be published, clearly represented the policy adopted by the Bureau. … The 1990 Interim Regulations amended 8 C.F.R. § 208.5 which set forth the standards for establishing a claim for asylum.

Agency of Canadian Car & Foundry Co. v. American Can Co.

253 F. 152 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 5, 1918

some matters in respect of which an ambassador’s certificate might not be admissible; but, when he certifies to the law of his country or to the personnel and authority of officials of his government, such certificate is clearly … Ed. 127 , the principle is firmly established in our courts that the rights and liabilities of a state are unaffected, by a change either in the form or personnel of its government, however accomplished, whether by revolution

Locurto v. Giuliani

269 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 2003

Based on the denial of their defense of qualified immunity, defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 12, 2000. … Because the Court concludes that defendants acted for reasons other than a reasonable concern for disruption in terminating plaintiffs, the Court need not address defendants’ claims of qualified immunity.