Case law

Wilder v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

175 F. Supp. 3d 82 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

Collectively, these alleged facts clearly support a claim for breach of the Union’s duty of fair representation. … Local 819, Int’l Bd. of Teamsters, 169 F.3d 782, 784 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that "individual union members” are “immun[e] ... in suits for breach of the duty of fair representation”).

Windsor v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2023

“[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or unless Congress has abrogate[d] the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” … Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)), the representation of a defendant by private counsel in state criminal proceedings does not constitute the degree of state involvement or interference necessary to establish a claim

Carter v. Akinyombo

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine protects federal and state officials from suit for acts undertaken in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct … does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights.”

LTV Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

116 B.R. 887 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 1990

A review of the legal *907 precedents clearly establishes that the bond replacements qualify as both a substituted contract and novation. … The documentation between the parties clearly establishes that the Aetna bond No. 018 S 71955 was substituted for the three pre-existing bonds.

Sapir v. Grabowski (In re Grabowski)

126 B.R. 24 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1991

Pending such curing, the debtor would have at least an equitable or constructive interest in the property in question as a result of the two court decisions which would be a sufficient interest to qualify as property of the … The certified copies do not establish that the original orders do not comply with CPLR § 2219(b). *28 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.

Hickey v. City of New York

241 F.R.D. 150 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2006

This affidavit is sufficient to establish prima facie proof of service *153 and creates a presumption that plaintiffs were properly served. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pacific Fin. … Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ objections clearly asserts that plaintiffs were properly served through service on their attorney, Cherner.

DELL PUB. CO., INC. v. Whedon

577 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 11, 1984

records “if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the ... record ..., all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified … This court is of the opinion that that testimony was inadequate to establish the trustworthiness of the documents under the Business Records exception.

United States v. Parra

302 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 21, 2004

By receiving Client’s proffer, the Government does not agree to make a motion on the Client’s behalf or to enter into a cooperation agreement, plea agreement, immunity or non-prosecution agreement. … Colon's testimony did not establish that an interpreter translated Mr. Weinstein’s remarks to Parra at the initial proffer session.

Brown v. Cathey

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 2025

ADA Rodney is therefore immune from suit for claims, and the claims are dismissed because they seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii). … A private company does not qualify as a state actor based “solely on the private entity’s creation, funding, licensing, or regulation by the government,” Cranley v. Nat'l Life Ins.

McLaughlin v. Penn Central Transportation Co.

384 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 29, 1974

Clearly it is not. … that “McLaughlin does not qualify as a ‘displaced person,’ and consequently is not entitled to relief as claimed.”

In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation

197 F.R.D. 71 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2000

Counsel thus selected is not necessarily the most qualified or that who will best protect the interests of the class. … Trial in such an instance clearly would not be in plaintiffs’ best interests.

COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC ED., ETC. v. Levitt

461 F. Supp. 1123 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 11, 1978

As in Levitt II, we can pass quickly over the first leg of the Establishment Clause test. The statute clearly manifests a secular legislative purpose. See 414 F.Supp. at 1178 . … No payment to a qualifying school shall be made until the commissioner has approved the application submitted pursuant to section four of this act. § 7. Audit.

TIORONDA, LLC. v. New York

386 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 2, 2005

Opportunity To Be Heard A state’s eminent domain power to condemn property for a public purpose is indisputable and long established. See State of Georgia v. … Moreover, other provisions of New York law clearly set forth the process by which such determinations may be challenged in an Article 78 proceeding. See CPLR § 217.

Abadi v. American Airlines Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2024

The government consents to be sued only when Congress expresses its intention to waive the government’s sovereign immunity clearly in statutory text. United States v. … Oct. 12, 2023), so as to establish liability under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). Dkt. No. 384 at 23.

Stonehill v. Security National Bank

68 F.R.D. 24 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1975

“While some such loans may qualify for exemption under § 221.2, unless *40 they do qualify for such an exemption they are subject to this part. … However, the undisputed facts so clearly establish that Royal was on notice with respect to the April 23 loan and failed to discharge the duty to investigate imposed on it by regulation, that the issue of reasonable care

In Re Sasson Jeans, Inc.

104 B.R. 600 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 6, 1989

Specifically, after the initial and supplemental hearings, 3 the court concluded that the trustee had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Guez had knowingly and willfully “attempted to secrete a substantial portion … Because the trustee is appointed by the United States Trustee, the trustee’s role in this case is not so clearly one falling within the rationale of Young. 481 U.S. at 814 , 107 S.Ct. at 2141 .

New York v. United States Postal Service

690 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 1988

Section 504 provides, in relevant part, that: No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States, ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, ... be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination … As discussed above, by enacting the arbitration provisions found in §§ 107d-1(a) and (b), Congress clearly intended to establish a complementary scheme whereby disputes over the substantive rights contained in the Act could

Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein

467 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 9, 2006

Plaintiff is a Member of a Protected Class Qualified for Her Position Plaintiff clearly meets the first McDonnell Douglas prong. … Plaintiff has clearly produced enough evidence to meet her minimal burden of showing she was qualified to be a laboratory associate. See de la Cruz v. N.Y. City Human Res. Admin. Dep’t of Soc.

Dulles v. Johnson

155 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 1957

The Foundation, established by the decedent in 1930 as a trust under New York law, is described by the Indenture of Trust set out in paragraph 284 of the stipulation! … Clearly this is a question of Congressional intent, but there is no indication of what that intent might be.

Morse v. Swank, Inc.

493 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1980

The trial judge had instructed the jury that if the plaintiffs were qualified to be a Yamaha dealer and if Yamaha’s sole purpose in denying them a dealership was to protect its other distributors from competition, then any … Morse must attempt to establish, if defendants did interfere, whether they did so maliciously and by what means, see Susskind v.