Case law

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

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.

Salinger v. Colting

641 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 2009

Antolini, telling Holden that he “can very clearly see [him] dying nobly, one way or another, for some highly unworthy cause” and handing Holden a note of advice that reads “[t]he mark of the immature man is that he wants … As the Second Circuit clearly noted in Castle Rock, just because a work “recast[s], transform[s], or adapt[s] ... an original work into a new mode of presentation,” thus making it a “derivative work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101

Tarrant v. City of Mount Vernon

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 1, 2021

However, while “[p]ro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, even following Twombly and Iqbal,” dismissal is “appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum … In deciding whether absolute immunity attaches, the Second Circuit has advised that: [i]nstead of relying on strict categories of actions with respect to which absolute immunity attaches, the relevant

James v. Goldberg

303 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 1969

all other persons similarly situated, seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 1983, United States Code, Title 42, to secure rights, privileges and immunities … Such efforts, however, must be, and clearly can be, conducted with due regard for the constitutional rights of welfare recipients.

Matos v. Discovery Communications, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2024

“[A] a court may incorporate documents referenced where (1) [the] plaintiff relies on the materials in framing the complaint, (2) the complaint clearly and substantially references the documents, and (3) the document’s … I believe that I am protected from getting COVID-19 due to natural immunity, and a reliance upon God’s protection, consistent with Psalm 91.

Shnayderman v. PayPal, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2023

The arbitration provision is clearly marked with the title “Agreement to Arbitrate” and dedicates nearly four pages to clearly and thoroughly outlining the terms of the arbitration agreement. … Mangiameli is clearly familiar with the record keeping system of which these documents are a part. She is qualified.

Lawtone-Bowles v. The City of New York (NYC)

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 2021

Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Pfrommer, 148 F.3d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that the ADA does not “establish an obligation to meet a disabled person’s particular needs vis-à-vis the needs of other [disabled] individuals.”).

Eriksson v. Galvin

484 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 1980

The court stated that the statutory violation alleged was the sale of the unregistered securities, and the facts clearly established that the sale was completed more than a year before the commencement of the action. … The foregoing review of the facts in this case clearly demonstrates that Eriksson failed to establish the requisite “causal relationship” between the challenged communications and his purchase of the RD securities and note

Dickens v. Hudson Sheraton Corp.

167 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 1, 2016

In order to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA and § 1981, Dickens must establish that (1) he is within a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the job at issue; (3) he was subjected … To establish a prima facie case of a discriminatory failure to promote, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was

McIver

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 2, 2026

Defendants fail to establish good cause. … Such broad allegations “do[] not establish the kind of ‘clearly defined, specific and serious injury’ required for the entry of a protective order under Rule 26(c).” Id.

Rockland Physician Associates, P.C. v. Grodin

616 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 1985

Indeed, the anesthesiology practitioners are clearly referred to only once, briefly, in the article on membership. “The ... contractual practitioners will be exempt from this geographical requirement.” … Clearly, there is no requirement that RPA, an entity which has no "privileges” as such, present its claims to the Council.

Brion

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2026

Here, Plaintiff’s fraud claim is “founded directly on rights created by the [CBA], as opposed to rights which [Plaintiff] possesses independently, and clearly implicates the terms of that Agreement.” Gorodkin v. Q-Co. … The arbitrable immunity doctrine provides that “arbitrators in contractually agreed upon arbitration proceedings are absolutely immune from liability in damages for all acts within scope of the arbitral process.”

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.

Condren v. Grace

783 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 30, 1992

After reviewing- the contrary assertions the court determines that this language clearly sets forth a directive instructing the Graces to notify Koppen of Condren’s entitlement to receive the first $85,000 in royalties arising … But Grace has not demonstrated that payment from an outside third entity qualifies as “overreaching” as between two independently contracting parties.

Nelson v. Sugarman

361 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 1972

Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262-264 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017-1018 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) : “[Welfare] benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them. … For qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care. [Citation omitted.]

Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA TECHNOLOGY, LLC

708 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 2010

Alan Perlman, from whom the Court heard testimony but declined to qualify as an expert in linguistics. … This representation clearly misrepresents the record.

National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.

255 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 4, 2003

limitation for certain actions brought against common carriers, it is silent as to the period of limitations applicable to private suits brought for violations of the Act’s anti-piracy provisions against companies that do not qualify … Thus, even more clearly than in 1912, the Radio Act of 1927, both as a whole and with particular reference to piracy, extended well beyond regulation of common carriers.

Kelly Kare, Ltd. v. O'ROURKE

751 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 1990

The plaintiff, Kelly Kare, Ltd., is a qualified Medicaid provider affording personal care services to indigent, disabled persons. Joan C. Kelly is its president and principal owner. … That step, which is preliminary to the entering into of a contract, clearly gives Kelly Kare no contractual rights for the year 1991. 2 .

Matter of Extradition of Hamilton-Byrne

831 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 1993

For the reasons which follow, I have declined to upset Judge Fox’s decision, which I conclude is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. … Finally, the Government also established the “urgency” of the case in its application.