Case law

Marinaccio v. Barnett Banks, Inc.

176 F.R.D. 104 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 23, 1997

This argument, while cleverly phrased, is really just another way of asserting that YSP payments, of the type made by defendants, are per se RESPA violations — which they clearly are not. … Like section 8(a), section 8(b) is qualified by the “reasonable relationship” test of 8(c) and 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14 .

Marte v. Montefiore Medical Center

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2022

The First Amendment bars federal or state government from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” U.S. CONST. amend. L. … Nov. 18, 2014) (“Plaintiff offers no facts or arguments to establish that [Montefiore], a private hospital, meets the state action requirement of § 1983”); Jackson v.

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

73 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 1999

Because Waite has not shown that American breached any duty owed to him, see pp. 8-9, supra, he has failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. 4.Waite Has Not Established Common Law Negligence in American’s Hiring … Nor did he proffer any evidence that AMR is not qualified to train baggage handling personnel or to perform baggage handling services.

Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of New Rochelle

191 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 1961

The court clearly considered the issue of intent and purpose to be controlling. In Sealy v. … It is valid' only insofar as it is operated within the confines established by the Constitution.

Martin Marietta Corp. v. Harper Group

950 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 7, 1997

The waybill’s place of execution is clearly indicated by the appearance of the Lawrence address in the box marked “name and address of issuing earrier/agent.” … (observing that agents of freight forwarders may qualify for liability limitations under Warsaw Convention).

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc.

576 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2008

This deficiency is significant, since the law clearly protects such secondary markets in authentic goods. See Polymer Tech. Corp. v. … Analysis In the case at hand, eBay clearly falls on the “service” side of the produet/service distinction.

Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Director General of the India Supply Mission ex rel. Union of India

319 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1970

This is clear from the testimony of defendant’s witness Diamond, who was well qualified to testify on this subject and who negotiated the freight contracts on defendant’s behalf. … The no demurrage clause here clearly excludes any claims against the defendant for delay in berthing the vessels or discharging cargo, contractual or non-contractual.

Laumann v. National Hockey League

907 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 2012

from antitrust scrutiny. 132 However, the notion that “the exhibition of [ ] league games on television and the Internet” is clearly a “league issue” 133 is contrary to longstanding precedent that agreements limiting the … The Second Circuit established in Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v.

United States v. Sprecher

783 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 1992

The language of the indictment clearly put Sprecher on notice of the charge. … He did not qualify his answers, even when responding to questions that explicitly called for information regarding KKP’s activities in the United States.

Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 15, 2024

It provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or … Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Regardless of the factual context, [courts] have required a plaintiff alleging retaliation to establish speech protected by the First Amendment.”).

United States v. Gotti

445 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2006

The analysis of the money laundering charge turns on the terms of the indictments and 1999 plea agreement, and is clearly a question of law, capable of determination “without the trial of the general issue.” 82 Even viewing … racketeering over a decade ago (not to mention any cases where there was an intervening indictment and plea during that decade). 108 The purpose of the statute of limitations — to protect against stale prosecutions — is clearly

Barletta v. Superintendent

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2025

“Applying AEDPA deference, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court’s adjudication on the merits ‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established, Federal … The Supreme Court has “clearly established” that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v.

Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc., et al.

District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 2026

“The proof needed to rebut the presumption need not establish a plaintiff’s inadequacy with absolute certainty; instead it is enough that it presents a colorable risk of inadequacy.” Batter v. … Moreover, though WVIMB is correct that the relevant case law largely cautions against appointing net gainers who are also net sellers, this does not immunize from unique defenses net gainers who are not net sellers.

Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2021-KF116 v. Kingsbridge Realty Associates LLC, Kingsbridge Realty II LLC, Olinville Realty LLC, Olinville Realty II LLC, Underhill Realty LLC, Joel Wiener, and “John Doe” Nos. 1-25

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2026

submissions to the Court or in correspondence between the Parties, the Producing Party shall affix the legend reflecting the appropriate designation to each page so designated and/or clearly … The Designating Party bears the burden of establishing the privileged nature of any inadvertently produced information or material.

Carroll v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York

206 F. Supp. 462 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1962

The strength of the faction antagonistic to the plaintiff is immaterial; its existence indicates that the identity of interest that would qualify plaintiff to represent the members of Local 12 is lacking. Giordano v. … The contention of plaintiffs Carroll and Peterson that they are employers of their sidemen is clearly supported by the evidence (see Findings of Fact Nos. 16-21).

Doherty v. Bice

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

But in Point I, Plaintiff expressly notes that the Magistrate Judge “correctly held that [his] mental health records were not necessary for [him] to establish his disability.” (Id. at 5.) … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, “a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that [he or she] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that [he or she] was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services

Reyes

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 2025

to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, 27 Haines v. … ‘Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.’

Gonzalez v. Gray

69 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 1999

Nevertheless, it is clearly distinguishable and falls well within the parameters of the cases cited above in which § 74 was determined to apply. … To qualify for the protections of § 74, the report must also be fair and true.

A.V.E.L.A., INC. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC

131 F. Supp. 3d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 18, 2015

As an initial matter, the First Amended Counterclaim clearly delineates Count I as a claim, arising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), rather than New York’s right of publicity. (FAC ¶¶ 52-60). … International further asserts that the dilution claim fails because the MONROE Marks are not sufficiently famous to qualify for protection. ■ (VI Br. 14).

Q-Co Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman

625 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 24, 1985

The Programs Both parties called individuals qualified as computer experts to testify about their examinations of the VPS-500 and the CPC-1 1000 programs. … Therefore, copyright infringement has not been established.