Case law

Belizaire v. Rav Investigative & Security Services Ltd.

61 F. Supp. 3d 336 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 2014

Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487, 491 (2d Cir.1960) (“While the FLSA does not expressly set forth a requirement of prompt payment, such a requirement is clearly established by the authorities.... ”); Rigopoulos v. … Plaintiff has, however, established that he engaged in activity protected by the NYLL.

Sotolongo v. New York City Transit Authority

63 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 25, 1999

Conciatori that he was fit for duty, unless the TA determined on a reasonable medical basis that such a finding was clearly wrong. … A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the position he held; (3) that there was an adverse employment action taken against him; and

Peterec-Tolino v. Ace American Insurance Co.

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 28, 2020

has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” … New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v.

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

Fridman v. City of New York

183 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

“To establish a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant 'deprived’ him of life, liberty, or property, a concept clearly satisfied by intentional conduct but … clearly not satisfied by conduct that is merely negligent.”

Lewis v. Velez

149 F.R.D. 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1993

In sum, of the factors used to assess trustworthiness, only the timeliness factor clearly cuts in favor of admission of the Bryan Report, and several factors cut strongly against it. … In such circumstances, the defendant’s intent clearly remains a contested issue. See Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 664-65 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872 , 109 S.Ct. 189 , 102 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988); Harris v.

Geromanos v. Columbia University

322 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2004

In order to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under § 2615(a)(1), plaintiff must prove that: 1) she exercised rights protected under the FMLA; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) she suf *434 fered an adverse … Additionally, plaintiff was not qualified to return to her job at the end of her leave, as the second element requires. (Supra, C.2).

NIBBS v. Goulart

822 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 2011

The danger of confusion and prejudice clearly outweigh the probative value of Wynne’s IAB history. … According to Nibbs, this improper motive to make arrests is relevant to the probable cause and malice elements of his malicious prosecution claim and necessary to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.

Hurley v. Coughlin

158 F.R.D. 22 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1993

Coughlin, 871 F.2d 241, 244 (2d Cir.1989) (“by consenting to the decree, the Commissioner waived eleventh amendment immunity.”) … Ortiz, 888 F.2d 12, 13 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 931 , 110 S.Ct. 2172 , 109 L.Ed.2d 501 (1990), and clearly provides no basis for a unilateral change in its terms.

Champion International Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

129 F.R.D. 63 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 1989

Applicable case law establishes that an oral determination may constitute a final order and that a determination may be made without a formal written request. See Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. … L-97311-88 (N.J.Super.), to support this contention that internal documents are immune from discovery.

In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation

835 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 27, 1993

This time around, the court rejected the accountant’s argument, citing Breará and reasoning that the Second Circuit has not qualified its holding that recklessness was a sufficient basis for scienter under 10b-5. … Clearly The Ltd. and Skubik did not involve the type of wholesale inventory fraud alleged in the case at bar. But see HB Holdings, 1990 WL 37869 at *2 (auditor dismissed despite relatively large fraud alleged). 4 .

Gay Veterans Ass'n, Inc. v. American Legion

621 F. Supp. 1510 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 6, 1985

The letter also provided that the Gay Veterans “insist on being allowed to carry our banner, which clearly identifies us as gay veterans.” … The evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff, Gay Veterans Association, Inc., is a veterans organization, dedicated to assisting its members and honoring those who have served in the Armed Forces of this country.

Xuedan Wang v. Hearst Corp.

293 F.R.D. 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2013

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ reading of Walling as establishing the test for an employer-employee relationship solely based on “direct or immediate benefit” is misplaced. … Because the content of the internships, which is the core of the dispute, cannot be evaluated based on common proof, individual issues clearly overwhelm the common ones here.

Gobern v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2020

Instead, the petitioner must demonstrate “that counsel omitted significant and obvious issues while pursuing issues that were clearly and significantly weaker.” Mayo v. … Second Circuit precedent generally “requires some objective evidence other than defendant’s assertions to establish prejudice.” Pham v.

Daza v. Pile Foundation Construction Co.

983 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2013

Daza does not qualify under the Jones Act as a seaman. III. Pile’s Liability under the LHWCA Daza has also brought a negligence claim against Pile under the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 905 (b). … The danger that the mats might be used to support a crane block was clearly not hidden, because the mats were utilized precisely for that purpose.

Fisher v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

703 F. Supp. 2d 374 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

real property or qualifying employer securities.” … The Allegations in the Complaint Do Not Establish a Plausible Claim That Overcomes the Presumption of Prudence A plaintiff may overcome the Moench presumption of prudence “by establishing that the fiduciary abused its discretion

Grytsyk v. Morales

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 19, 2021

RQ may be granted on qualified immunity grounds only if the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a claim for relief.” … And it certainly cannot say that “the facts supporting the defense of qualified immunity . . . appear on the face of the complaimt.” Swilivan, 2015 WL 5025296, at *8. Zz.

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.

Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. v. M/V Sampson

245 F. Supp. 3d 473 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2017

Reinsurance Corp., 63 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir. 1995) (“A court should be ‘loathe’ to revisit an earlier decision ‘in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would … For instance, CVI fails to demonstrate that a qualified representative participated in the drafting of the charter party or explicate the nature and extent of involvement in such drafting by such qualified individuals.

Arista Records LLC v. Usenet. Com, Inc.

633 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 2009

Defendants argue that these declarants are fact witnesses whose identities and supporting documents were wrongfully concealed until the end of discovery under the work product immunity doctrine. … “To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) unauthorized copying or a violation of one of the other exclusive rights afforded copyright owners pursuant