Case law

Hyndman v. Small Business Administration

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 22, 2024

United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)).1 “The party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction exists.” Hettler v. Entergy Enters., Inc., 15 F. … The “word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion,” Biden v. Texas, 142 S.Ct. 2528, 2541 (2022), and the allocation of lump-sum appropriations is typically considered a discretionary act, see Lincoln v.

Jones v. New York City Human Resources Administration

391 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 1975

This method is considered more effective than other validation methods because it clearly establishes the degree of correlation between successful examination performance and successful job performance. … (Grammas affidavit, Paragraph 9) This is clearly not the case.

Brown v. New York City Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 9, 2020

There is no indication 6 Separately, Defendants claim qualified immunity. … Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that on a motion to dismiss, “the facts supporting the [qualified immunity] defense [must] appear on the face of the complaint”).

Vogelfang v. Capra

889 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 13, 2012

Section 1983 Vogelfang’s submissions clearly denote an intent to bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Such discovery may permit defendants to show, on a future motion for summary judgment, either that Vogelfang’s removal from the proceeding was factually justified or that defendant Maddox is entitled to qualified immunity

In Re Saxon Securities Litigation

644 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 30, 1985

It is established beyond question that in order to have standing to bring a 10b-5 claim the plaintiff must be either a purchaser or seller. Blue Chip Stamps v. … The Phelan court’s holding clearly rests on the assumption that the purchasers bought without knowledge of the fraud.

Technology Insurance Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2022

“[T]he burden is on a party claiming the protection of a privilege to establish those facts that are the essential elements of the privileged relationship.” … Oct. 7, 1991) (“The work-product immunity can be overcome by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship by the party seeking discovery.”).

Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 11, 2024

Documents shall be designated by stamping or otherwise marking the documents with the words “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” thus clearly identifying the category of … The Designating Party bears the burden of establishing the privileged nature of any inadvertently produced information or material.

In Re Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc.

227 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 20, 1964

This Court cannot now alter the class established by the Arrangement. Since section 369 is inapplicable, section 370 becomes inapplicable by its own terms. … Clearly the notice given was not sufficient to protect the rights of the petitioners.

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

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

The undisputed record clearly establishes that the Underlying Defendants do not qualify as insureds under the Liberty Mutual Policy. … As such, the undisputed record clearly establishes that the claim here is not covered under the Liberty Mutual Policy and that Liberty Mutual is entitled to summary judgment. III.

Arazi v. Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation

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

See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(b)(4) (prohibiting “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to … Indeed, Defendant appears to ask that the Court apply the “clearly established right” principle from qualified immunity doctrine to its analysis of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL.

McMurray

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 9, 2026

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. … To state a claim, a plaintiff must establish that he is a qualified person with a disability; that the defendants are subject to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; and that he was denied the opportunity to participate

United States v. Al Fawwaz

67 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 25, 2014

The public clearly has an interest in avoiding any additional delay or total preclusion of a trial on these charges. Moreover, nothing about al Liby’s medical condition indicates a current inability to stand trial. … Bin Laden, 109 F.Supp.2d 211 , 214 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (“It is well established that conspiracy allegations, such as the five with which all seventeen Defendants are charged in this case can serve as a 'common link’ justifying

Republic of Panama v. Republic Nat. Bank of NY

681 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 15, 1988

It is the statute, however, that we deem conclusive in establishing plaintiff’s right to immediate injunc-tive relief. … Requiring a bond would thwart the purpose of § 632 by qualifying plaintiffs claim to funds which it has an unqualified right to possess. II.

Mansaray v. Krous Security Service

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

To defeat a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “(1) that she is a member of a protected class, (2) that she was qualified for the position she sought, (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) … App'x 150 (2d Cir. 2010) (the fact that a change in the terms of employment “was accomplished in accordance with [a] [collective bargaining agreement] does not necessarily immunize it from constituting an adverse employment

Liebowitz v. Elsevier Science Ltd.

927 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 7, 1996

Ex. 7) A testy exchange of letters ensued in which Pergamon informed the Liebowitzes, pere et fils, that it did not consider them “remotely qualified” to co-edit the journal and purported to reject their appointment. … Defendants, however, have introduced no evidence that Jay and Harold Liebowitz were unqualified, other than their letter asserting, without any stated basis, that the two were not "remotely qualified.” (Pl.

Pasha v. New York State Department of Health

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2024

” wouldn’t qualify as such and avoid liability. … The Court clearly erred in it’s holding in Order 120 by claiming “a third party’s influence on a decisionmaker’s termination of a plaintiff fails to establish a joint employment relationship,” Plaintiff supplements previous

Wolin v. Port of New York Authority

268 F. Supp. 855 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 3, 1967

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. … Thus the present case is clearly distinguishable from those where the challenged conduct, usually picketing in a labor dispute, has been found to obstruct or impede the flow of traffic, e. g., Adderley v.

Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 20, 2000

Enforcement procedures have been established by way of extensive administrative regulations. … Under Rule 12(f), “[m]otions to strike are generally disfavored and will not be granted unless the matter asserted clearly has no bearing on the issue in dispute.” Burger v. Health Ins.

In Re Omeprazole Patent Litigation

258 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2001

This statement in the preamble of *230 claim 2 clearly supports Genpharm’s position that “synergism” is simply the effect of combining omeprazole and clarithro-mycin. … However, advertising and instructions to customers are not a prerequisite to establish intent. See Mendenhall v.

Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Construction & Development

111 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 2015

To qualify for Directive 14 status, an alteration application must not affect a building’s Certificate of Occupancy. Gavosto Decl. ¶ 7. … And while the form clearly establishes GF55’s duty to the City, its terms do not explicitly impose any additional liability to any private party.