Case law

Lathan v. Oswald

359 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1973

Pious, 392 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1968): “to qualify under § 1983 the right sought to be enforced must in the main be one incapable of pecuniary evaluation . . . . ” The Second Circuit’s reading of 28 U. … The prisoner’s right of access to the courts was firmly established in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 , 89 S.Ct. 747 , 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969).

Spadola v. New York City Transit Authority

242 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 2003

She found that Spadola had provoked the confrontation and that his behavior “was clearly inappropriate. It was provocative, abusive, threatening and public.... ” (Id. at 7.) … While it is true that Spadola is not required to demonstrate that the conduct in question would actually qualify as unlawful harassment, see Quinn, 159 F.3d at 769 , his subjective belief by itself, even if held in good faith

Stevens v. New York

691 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 23, 2009

To lay a proper foundation for individual liability, the plaintiff must plead “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations” to establish the participation at the necessary mental state of the individual defendants, or his … He clearly has not done so with respect to defendants Canton and Hawkins.

Moccio v. Cornell University

889 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2012

The meager evidence at hand, in fact, supports a finding that these three men are clearly not appropriate comparators. … However, on the undisputed facts, Moccio’s employment was clearly at-will, and judgment must be granted in favor of defendants.

RSUI Indemnity Co. v. RCG Group (USA)

890 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2012

Co., 98 N.Y.2d 208, 220 , 746 N.Y.S.2d 622 , 774 N.E.2d 687 (2002) (“Once coverage is established, the insurer bears the burden of proving that an exclusion applies”). … Bovis is clearly distinguishable.

Doe v. Pataki

940 F. Supp. 603 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1996

Yet, common sense dictates, and the cases clearly hold, that other factors must be considered as well. … Public notification under the Act is not simply a matter, for example, of being qualified to work in the pharmaceutical industry or on the waterfront or being qualified to carry a gun.

Carroll v. American Federation of Musicians of United States

241 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 17, 1965

The present suit clearly does not qualify, since the rights sought to be enforced are several and not secondary or derivative in nature. … Its function is apparently to help establish this relationship in law.

Lara v. Keyser

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2020

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; (2) the state court’s denial of relief “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of . . . clearly established … California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), Lara cannot show that his sentence as a persistent violent offender is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Lopez v. Greiner

323 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2004

F at 2-3), thus plainly qualifies as an adjudication on the merits. … F at 3.) *480 Because that court, adjudicated Lopez’s Sixth Amendment claim on the merits, to qualify for habeas relief, Lopez must establish that its determination is not merely incorrect, but an unreasonable application

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York

86 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2015

Under Pike , the statute will be upheld unless the burden on interstate Commerce: is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing that the rule has an impact on commerce.

Patterson v. NEWSPAPER & MAIL DEL. U. OF NY & VIC.

384 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 11, 1974

With the same purpose, funds have been established by the defendants to provide back pay awards chiefly to these persons. The Intervenors’ Objections The Group III list at the News numbers 178. … Having carefully considered the matter in light of the principles briefly discussed above and after a careful review of a number of qualified men and women who might be available for appointment, the Court has decided to

United States v. Crispino

392 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 1975

Clearly not. It is precisely the opposite. It is as broad and as vague as possible. … The court concluded that “[w]hat has been briefly said in regard to those and the other circumstance clearly establishes that a substantial due process question of preindictment delay is presented in this case and that the

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Frosty Bites, Inc.

325 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 16, 2004

It is uncontested that Angus, as FBI’s president during the term of the Policy, qualifies as a covered director or officer. (Angus Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 11-12.) The underlying action was brought by Dippin’ Dots, Inc. … Angus and FBI are designated defendants in completely separate groups with FBI clearly being sued only for patent infringement and the Mosey defendants clearly being sued for both trademark infringement and patent infringement

Hughes v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 21, 2021

Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is misplaced. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from suits seeking to impose personal liability for money damages based on unsettled rights or on conduct that was not objectively unreasonable.” Tenenbaum v.

Browne v. Rivera

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2025

Plaintiff’s Vagueness Challenge to Section 375.12-a(a) of the VTL Plaintiff contends that VTL § 375.12-a(a) “is unconstitutional for vagueness because it does not clearly, precisely, exactly, and explicitly define … Rivera is entitled to qualified immunity, or whether Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was ever proper or is now moot. See Defs.’ Mem. at 19-21; Defs.’ Reply at 7.

In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation

169 F.R.D. 493 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 26, 1996

Here, the class numbers at least a million members, and the numerosity requirement is clearly satisfied. Moreover, a class of this size plainly makes joinder of all members impracticable, if not impossible. … Likewise, nearly all the Defendants have raised primary jurisdiction and implied antitrust immunity as affirmative defenses in their answers to the Complaint.

Walker v. George

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 2022

Thus, “as a general rule, 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 when acting … But, “Congress did not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity when it enacted []§ 1983 . . . , and New York has not waived its immunity.” Walker v. NYS Just. Ctr. for the Prot. of People with Special Needs, 493 F.

Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

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

City of New York, 424 F.3d 231, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2005); id. at 237 (“Once the court determines that the challenged prosecution was not clearly beyond the prosecutor's jurisdiction … To establish a false arrest claim under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant intended to confine [the plaintiff], (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement

Moore Capital Management, L.P. v. Giddens (In re Lehman Bros.)

533 B.R. 362 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 17, 2015

contracts, or to secure or extend the credit, of any customer or person other than the one for whom the same are held.... 46 Similarly, an FCM must hold exchange-traded foreign-futures customer funds “under an account name that clearly … In a SIPA liquidation, a fund of “customer property,” separate from the general estate of the failed broker-dealer, is established for priority distribution exclusively among customers.

Villafane, Jr. v. City of New York

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

However, “[a] threat of force does not constitute excessive force.” 4 Because the false arrest claim fails, the Court need not reach the questions of: (i) whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity or … Reply 2–7. 6 Here too, because the excessive force claim fails, the Court need not reach the issues of qualified immunity or Monell liability. 7 On this