Case law

Baldwin v. Emi Feist Catalog, Inc.

989 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 16, 2013

Admissibility of Expert Testimony The proponent of expert evidence bears the initial burden of establishing admissibility by a “preponderance of proof.” 33 Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of *349 Evidence states the following … requirements for the admission of expert testimony: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as

Amato v. Western Union International, Inc.

596 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 1984

As the Third Circuit has recently held, “[w]here Congress has established an extensive regulatory network and has expressly announced its intention to occupy the field, federal courts will not lightly create additional rights … A.5 No WUI Employee who has not qualified for a Class A Pension or a Class 75 Pension as of December 31 shall thereafter be eligible for such a pension. 3 .

R-T Leasing Corp. v. Ethyl Corp.

494 F. Supp. 1128 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 7, 1980

As in American Manganese, R-T Leasing has clearly rested upon its alleged rights to object to the format of the inventories and cannot now be heard to object to the format of the 1978 inventory. … As the designation of the type of substance to be transported by the tank cars is entirely absent from the lease, “[w]hile it is elementary that parol evidence is not admissible to explain or undertake to qualify a written

Ryan v. Volpone Stamp Co., Inc.

107 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 2000

If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), then the court need not decide whether its absence warrants dismissal under Rule 19(b) ... … The Second Circuit has held that: establishing a high probability of confusion as to sponsorship almost inevitably establishes irreparable harm ...

Seltzer v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2005

She earned as much as $120,000 a year in salary and bonus, and clearly she was exempt from the wage and hour laws. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff may rely on evidence presented to establish her *295 prima facie case as well as additional evidence.

United States v. Umeh

762 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 3, 2011

Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (“Nor do we retreat from the established rule that illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction.”). … This claim merits no discussion, however, as the Indictment clearly charges Yaroshenko with the transportation of drugs. See Indict. ¶ 11.

Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Fox

568 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2008

At issue is whether DBI’s use of the words “love potion” infringed Fox’s LOVE POTION trademark, or whether the use was fair use, immune from liability. … The only similarity is the term “love potion,” which alone is insufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. See Clairol, Inc. v.

Chiaracane v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 2020

Trainor’s reliance on the plaintiffs’ testimony that TBP “ate through the gloves” is not reliable to establish an OSHA violation. … exists that she is qualified to opine.

Williams v. Settle Homes

District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 2024

Eugene informed Plaintiff that without a current documented steady source of income, he does not qualify to rent an apartment and suggests that Plaintiff’s best option would be to apply with a guarantor. … To establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must first allege that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v.

Cole v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

496 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 20, 2007

For an injury to qualify as a “significant limitation” under § 5102(d), the limitation must be something more than a “minor, mild or slight limitation of use.” Licari v. … When asked about loss of motion in Plaintiffs neck as of late 2003, Kloth did not quantify the degree of lost motion, but instead noted that “she clearly had that from numerous other exams,” that “she has had [loss of motion

Mando v. Beame

398 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1975

The Court noted [p. 333 n. 7 of 499 F.2d]: “A statute that bars all employment has a substantially different effect from one that simply grants an advantage to some otherwise qualified for employment . . . .” … The Act is intended to benefit unemployed persons and clearly, the plaintiffs are intended beneficiaries of the Act.

Banks v. Dillion

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 2021

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint in which he alleges facts that clearly show that the Court may exercise its subject-matter jurisdiction to consider his claims.

Dial Corp. v. News Corp.

314 F.R.D. 108 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 18, 2015

To establish that News Corp. committed any (or all) of these exclusionary acts will require Plaintiffs to put forth the same evidence for all members of the class. … It used to clearly be the case that individual damages determinations would not defeat class certification. See Seijas v. Republic of Arg., 606 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir.2010).

Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.

76 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 1999

Where primary assumption of risk is present, it does not merely diminish plaintiffs recovery, but eliminates or qualifies whatever duty defendant otherwise would owe to plaintiff in the circumstances. … However, it is clearly established under New York law that "a manufacturer may be liable for failing to warn against the dangers of foreseeable misuse of its product,” Liriano I, 92 N.Y.2d at 240 , 677 N.Y.S.2d 764 , 700

Owen v. SoundView Financial Group, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1999

Most pension plans are intended to be “qualified” plans for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). … The Plan herein is an “employee pension benefit plan” subject to ERISA and is intended to be a “qualified” plan under the Code.

National Lawyers Guild v. Attorney General

94 F.R.D. 600 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 19, 1982

It would seem, however, that when the United States waives tort immunity, it accepts the responsibilities that go along with the waiver. … Congress cannot be thwarted by an executive decision to devote plainly insufficient resources to the litigation tasks that must be performed so that an immunity waiver is not illusory. In United States v.

Kaya v. United States Small Business Administration

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 8, 2025

Cir. 1994) (cleaned up)); see also infra § III.B (discussing the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity). … The “word ‘may’” in these statutes “clearly connotes discretion. Hyndman, 2024 WL 233463, at *4 (quoting Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 802 (2022)).

Brager & Co., Inc. v. Leumi Securities Corp.

429 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 1977

a Section 2 conspiracy. 10 On the contrary, the complaint clearly alleges that there existed an “agreement, understanding and concert of action among Defendants . to [pjrevent Brager and other Israeli bond dealers from doing … Leumi New York asserts that, in any event, its actions are immunized from antitrust liability by the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1841-50 , which specifically authorizes Leumi Israel’s ownership of Leumi New York

Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co.

69 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 27, 1999

The Second Circuit has held that the recklessness that will give rise to punitive damages “must be close to criminality” and like criminal behavior, must be “clearly established.” Roginsky v. … Volkswagen of America, 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979), which affirmed the entry of a directed verdict where the plaintiffs expert was not qualified to testify as to automobile design defects and plaintiff failed to establish

Sabatino v. Flik International Corp.

286 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 2003

Compass’s Family and Medical Leave policy states that “once it is determined that the associate qualifies for a leave of absence he/she will be provided with up to sixteen (16) weeks of unpaid leave in the twelve (12) month … However, defendants’ policy clearly indicates that the twelve-month period is measured forward from the date *337 FMLA leave begins.