Case law

McCormack v. IBM

145 F. Supp. 3d 258 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 9, 2015

“It is well established that the burden-shifting framework set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … “To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff with an age discrimination claim must show (1) that [he or] she was within the protected age group, (2) that [he or] she was qualified for the position, (3) that [he or] she experienced

Linkco, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd.

232 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2002

Id. *192 Whether a trade secret misappropriation claim is legal or equitable has not been clearly decided. … The opinion testimony of qualified experts; 15.

Loughlin v. Goord

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

That is sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction. … The fact that a qualified privilege applies does not automatically grant Defendant impunity, but Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to overcome the qualified privilege.

GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 18, 2025

Instead, the Rule “clearly sweeps more broadly” and includes documents made “‘because of’ existing or expected litigation . . . despite the fact that their purpose is not to ‘assist in’ litigation” – a formulation that … The fundamental purpose of the attorney work product doctrine is to “establish a zone of privacy for strategic litigation planning” and to “prevent one party from piggybacking on the adversary’s preparation.”

Kessler v. Grand Cent. Dist. Management Ass'n, Inc.

960 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 1997

Code §§ 25-401 to 25-417 provide statutory authority for the establishment and operation of BIDs in New York City. … The voting scheme of which Plaintiffs complain is clearly stated in the GCDMA Bylaws and in New York City and New York State law. See Joint Stip., Ex. I ¶ 1; GML § 980-m(b); Admin. Code § 25-414(b).

Northwestern National Insurance v. Alberts

741 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 29, 1990

The limited partners allege that Esrine “masterminded" the entire restructuring with the goal of immunizing Northwestern from “attack” by the limited partners and that throughout, Esrine and Northwestern were “one in [sic … contentions that it was not a “control person” or “seller” within the statutory meanings of those appellations, the defendants have alleged facts incorporated under Count One to sustain a claim that Northwestern’s role qualifies

DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 25, 2025

The City agrees that the legislative privilege is qualified but contends that the depositions are nonetheless barred by privilege. (Opp. at 17–24). … Thus, while this case clearly involves serious First Amendment claims, the third Rodriguez factor does not tip in favor of disclosure.”); Searingtown, 575 F.

Costanzo v. United States

758 F. Supp. 869 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 1990

In each case, Judge Gagliardi rejected Fee-ney’s claims, finding that he had not been promised immunity and there was no prose-cutorial misconduct tainting his convictions. … Again the court denied his motion for failure to establish a requisite showing of taint. On appeal, Costanzo challenged the trial court’s refusal to conduct an evidentia-ry hearing.

Ryan v. Goldfine

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2024

The body cam footage shows clearly that Mr. Edward was the aggressor. With the body cam footage, it was Mr. … immunity. 16

Friedeberg

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 2025

treated as such by all million Japanese/Chinese psychiatrists and to be made to pay for the loving benevolent, very beneficial treatment that made them all look like worthy royals for the past 500 years and to establish … A claim is “frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”

Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Utilities

318 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2004

NU’s reading also ignores subsections (b) and (c), which qualify subsection (a) and help to make it clear that § 8-302(a) is a statement of the shelter rule. B. … Co., 602 F.Supp. at 936-41 (involving trust indenture with clearly established mechanism for distributing interest payments to current bondholders in case of default).

Kaplan v. Vincent

937 F. Supp. 307 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 1996

Moreover, Vincent contends that because he and Kaplan were friends, he did not believe a formal agreement was necessary. *315 In sum, in light of the fact that the drafts and the parties’ correspondence clearly establish … He argues that Kaplan clearly was not justified in relying on the alleged misrepresentations.

Carroll v. Trump

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

Richardson-Merrell, Inc. — the first Second Circuit case really to discuss the issue for unintentional tort cases — the court held that punitive damages in such cases “must be clearly established.” 378 F.2d 832, … Moreover, the Roginsky panel explicitly noted defamation as an exception to the “clearly established” standard for punitive damages, again relying on earlier Court of Appeals cases instead of the more recent Corrigan

Bill Graham Archives, LLC v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.

386 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 2005

In order to establish a claim of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must establish (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) unauthorized copying or a violation of one of the other exclusive rights afforded copyright … Reproducing and selling one of the works as a poster or artwork would clearly infringe plaintiffs copyright.

Condec Corp. v. Farley

573 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 1983

In any event, such uncertainty clearly does not constitute irreparable harm under the Williams Act. … inappropriate for this Court, in the present state of the record and without the appearance before it of any authorized representative of the beneficiaries of the Master Trust (other than Farley and Vrba, who would hardly qualify

London Typographers, Inc. v. Sava

628 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 31, 1986

A review of the evidence submitted fails to establish the requisite experience. … Counsel’s incredible statement flies in the face of the very evidence submitted by him which clearly states “... (beneficiary) was appointed on 1st October, 1965 at our press for Typesetting and Proofreading.

United States v. Wei Heng Lee

862 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 1994

Whether the government will be able to establish the truth of the allegations is a question which will await trial. … This opinion and order, like the papers submitted on the motion, refers to SI except where otherwise clearly stated. 2 .

DuPont Glore Forgan Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

437 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 1977

PBX systems generally will immediately qualify for this exemption. … The defendants also make two claims of antitrust immunity which must be dealt with preliminarily.

Jordan v. Lefevre

22 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1998

Such a finding will not be overturned on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. See Brown v. Kelly, 973 F.2d 116, 122 (2d Cir.1992). … [Step 3:] The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Batson v.

Weissman v. United States

599 F. Supp. 1366 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 20, 1984

Weekends provided some peace because I felt that only then was I immune from the chance that a phone call would come telling me that all had been, discovered. … This record does not support such a claim. 4 On the contrary, the record reveals a sophisticated, well-advised and fully comprehending defendant who pled guilty to clearly established crimes, but now repents of his plea because