Case law

Molina v. John Jay Institute For Justice and Opportunity/City University of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2024

Plaintiff does not clearly state which specific position(s) he applied for in May 2021. … CUNY is considered an “arm of the state,” which means that “suits against CUNY are equivalent to suits against the State of New York and are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”203 Because New York’s immunity

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”).

Puma v. Brandenburg

324 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 15, 1971

The Executive Board clearly had authority to enact the Officers’ Pension Plan and the accompanying Escrow Agreement. … Moreover, an interested member could have read the minutes of the December Í2, 1956 Executive Board meeting in which the details of the Plan were clearly set forth.

Prestige Floral v. California Artificial Flower Co.

201 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 5, 1962

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said ( 193 F.2d at 164 ): “It is the well established rule that a copyright on a work of art does not protect a subject, but only the treatment of a subject. * * … The notice on the stem though is clearly visible to the naked eye. The notice on the leaf, however, is considerably more difficult to make out.

Kwasnik v. Oxford Health Insurance, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 2023

, (ii) the employee organization in the case of a plan established or maintained by an employee organization, (iii) in the case of a plan established or maintained by two or more employers or jointly by one or more employers … Court may consider on a motion to dismiss;12 it clearly rebuts Plaintiff’s contention that Oxford is the plan administrator. See Stalinski Decl. Ex.

Latouche v. Dr. John Hammer

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 2022

As an initial matter, “state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress 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.

Bryant v. Maffucci

729 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 23, 1990

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Clearly, the delay in the present case was the equivalent of denial because the gestation period exceeded the legal limit for termination, leaving plaintiff to carry her pregnancy to term. 3 .

Otero v. New York City Housing Authority

354 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 1973

Furthermore, HUD clearly has the power to protect the interest which it fears is threatened here. … Finally, enforcement of the Fair Housing Act would be severely hampered by immunizing all leases from judicial con *956 trol. We believe that this result is not required or intended by the statute. VII.

Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third & Fourth Departments

118 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 2015

operations, hire additional attorneys and staff, acquire new technology, and improve its physical offices and. infrastructure to increase its ability to serve its existing clients and to attract and retain new clients and qualified … But there is no suggestion here that lawyers are a suspect class. .Indeed, they very clearly are not.

Robinson v. Scully

529 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1981

The Sykes default doctrine, arising as it does from the immunity from habeas review afforded state decisions resting on adequate and independent state grounds, see Sykes, supra, 433 U.S. at 81-2 , 97 S.Ct. at 2503-04 , cannot … that his resentence was excessive and improper due to the addition of the consecutive term also seems to articulate sufficiently the constitutional underpinnings of his attack, but, in any event, the Gruttola criteria were clearly

United States v. Ultramar Shipping Co., Inc.

685 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 11, 1988

However, where the Harter Act would ordinarily apply to an event, it forbids and nullifies all contractual terms which broaden a carrier’s immunities and defenses beyond those granted by the act itself. 46 U.S.C.App. § 190 … The Bangladesh Committee of Enquiry clearly considered the SOLAS guidelines applicable to the CHERRY LAJU. (Ex. 17).

Harding v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 9, 2024

Id. 3 Because all claims are being dismissed, the Court does not address defendants’ arguments concerning qualified immunity. 18 Here, reading the complaint liberally, … Ihave established a PACER account; 3.

Danisco A/S v. Novozymes A/S

427 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 2006

Se’s prior statement does not clearly refer to Lipase .3. What Dr. Se actually says is that studies had shown that “the Aspergillus niger lipase did not have a phospholipid hydrolysing [sic] effect.” (P. … Novozymes has failed to establish a “factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person” that in camera review of the documents at issue "may reveal evidence to establish to claim that the crime-fraud

TZ Manor, LLC v. Daines

815 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

As a general matter, this provision clearly gives DOH broad authority to regulate and “administer]” adult-care facilities. … Because this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not stated any federal constitutional claims, the Court need not address the State Defendants' assertion of qualified immunity. (State Defs.’ Mem. 23-24.) .

Azzarmi

District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2026

Because “[a] magistrate judge is best qualified to judge the entire atmosphere of the discovery process,” her “rulings on discovery matters are entitled to substantial deference.” … Plaintiff describes these comments as somehow immune from sanctions because they reflect Plaintiffs “bona-fide religious beliefs.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Dkt. No. 186 at 5.)

Weeks v. Authentic Brands Group Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 20, 2023

The producing Person retains the burden of establishing the privileged or protected nature of any Inadvertently Disclosed Information. … or does not or do not qualify for the level of protection asserted. 24.

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.”).

Itzcovitz v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NUMBER 6, NY

301 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 1969

In that case, plaintiff was a divinity student — thus qualifying for an exemption from military service granted by section 6(g) of the 1951 Act, 50 U.S.C. … He submits, that if this be established, the restriction on jurisdiction in § 10(b) (3), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Oestereich, supra, is inapplicable.

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

Roseboro v. Gillespie

791 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 24, 2011

immunity. … Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2909 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (no "distinction for purposes of immunity law” between Bivens and § 1983 claims); Polanco v. U.S.