Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
204 results
2.11s
2024 NY Slip Op 50370(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 8, 2024
The outstanding questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the officers' actions also precludes a determination at this stage regarding qualified immunity ( Delgado v City of New York , 86 AD3d 502, 510 [1st Dept 2011 … ]["To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers
Cited 1 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 50370(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 8, 2024
The outstanding questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the officers' actions also precludes a determination at this stage regarding qualified immunity ( Delgado v City of New York , 86 AD3d 502, 510 [1st Dept 2011 … ]["To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer involved to believe that his or her conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers
Cited 1 timesUnpublished2025 NY Slip Op 30014(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 3, 2025
"Presidential immunity and tl1e Supremacy Clause." … See Clinton, 520 US at 703 ("The fact that a federal court's exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the Chief Executive is not sufficient to establish
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2004 NY Slip Op 24081 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 20, 2004
In her decision, ALJ Levy explained that pursuant to HPD rules and regulations, in order to qualify for succession rights in the subject apartment, an occupant must either be approved from a waiting list, or must qualify … ALJ [*3]Levy based her decision on Michael Madden's unrebutted testimony and the "substantial documentation" establishing the subject apartment as his residence.
Cited 0 timesPublished2024 NY Slip Op 33618(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Oct 8, 2024
To sufficiently allege a prima facie case under Section 1983, the plaintiff must show that the defendants acted under the color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity … Plaintiff established that he is a member of a protected class because he identifies as Black/African American, he was qualified to hold his position as a Correction Officer, he was terminated from
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 34147(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Nov 26, 2024
While the City may indemnify its employees, the potential for individual defenses, such as qualified immunity, undermines a finding of unity of interest (Pope v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 30871 … The City’s potential vicarious liability does not suffice to establish unity of interest. B.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 30466(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 13, 2024
immunity. … Appx. 129, 131 [2d Cir. 2013][ Under federal law, to be entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and false imprisonment claims, a defendant police officer must only demonstrate "arguable probable
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 32182(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jun 28, 2024
This lowered Plaintiff's immune system and Defendant agreed to allow Plaintiff to work remotely. … To establish a claim for discrimination under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must prove that he was (a) a member of a protected class; (b) was qualified for the position; (c) suffered an adverse employment
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2026 NY Slip Op 50156(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 11, 2026
Ho is well qualified by training and experience to offer medical opinions concerning immunosuppression and HIV-related medical terminology. … The Legislature chose to frame § 2783 as a "penalties and immunities" provision, not as a damages provision.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMatter of Herald Co., Inc. v. Feurstein
2004 NY Slip Op 24073 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 23, 2004
Clearly, the Oneidas are not a party to this action. Although their interests are certainly affected by this litigation, the Oneidas have chosen not to participate. … Footnotes Footnote 1: IGRA establishes a comprehensive federal statutory scheme for the regulation of tribal gaming activities ( see 25 USC § 2701 [4]; § 2702 [1] [2]).
Cited 0 timesPublished2024 NY Slip Op 31321(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 16, 2024
Clearly, then, defendant failed to 'yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard', as … Plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment dismissing Defendants' affirmative defenses of culpable conduct, assumption of risk, government immunity, and invocation of the emergency doctrine.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished58 N.Y. St. Rep. 751 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 15, 1894
Rep. 316 , it was held that the return of an execution unsatisfied was not necessary where the situation was such as to render impossible the issuance of' such execution, and it seems to me that the principle established … C., 33 , Mr., Justice Barrett clearly intimates that, in his opinion, a court of equity has power to enforce such a judgment, not treating the wife and children as mere judgment creditors.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTranghese v. W 122 Enters. Group LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 32366(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jul 7, 2025
She argues that Leahy’s testimony establishes that said IAI work was either non- qualifying or had never been performed (id., NYSCEF Doc No. 120 at 8-12, 16-23). … regarding both the propriety of apartment deregulations in the Building and whether qualifying IAI work was performed in the Apartment.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRamos v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 30891(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 12, 2026
Plaintiff tacitly concedes that the statements that defendants made on his Form U5 are subject to absolute immunity. … To establish a claim for IIED, the following four elements must be alleged: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial 154234/2025 RAMOS, NOAH vs.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2026 NY Slip Op 30729(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 2, 2026
To qualify, the documentary evidence must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable; affidavits and emails generally do not suffice unless they conclusively establish the absence of a claim (Granada … The anti-SLAPP statute does not immunize knowingly false factual allegations to law enforcement.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2025 NY Slip Op 25238 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Nov 3, 2025
Subjecting the Defendant to SORA Would be Clearly Contrary to the Statute Subjecting out-of-state offenders to SORA would be clearly contrary to numerous provisions of the SORA law. These are next outlined. … O'Donnell first relied upon the general principle that "[w]here a statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, and no qualifying exception is added, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what
Cited 0 timesPublishedImpark HSW LLC v. RFR Realty LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30721(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 26, 2026
No. 10) which constitutes documentary evidence of ownership in real property -- clearly and unambiguously establishes that RFD Third Avenue conveyed its entire ownership interest in … prior to the transfer of ownership. 3 Further, the deed, read together with section 21 of the Agreement -- which governed the parties' relationship until its expiration in 2011 -- clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedFFS Data Corp. v. OLB Group, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 30854(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 15, 2024
"[T]he burden of establishing any right to protection is on the party asserting it; the protection claimed must be narrowly construed; and its application must be consistent with the purposes underlying … the immunity" (Spectrum Sys., 78 NY2d at 377).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2004 NY Slip Op 24077 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 11, 2004
These facts clearly establish that the goldfish were household pets. … These actions clearly evince defendant's understanding and intention of inflicting emotional pain {** 3 Misc 3d at 708 }on both the boy and his mother.
Cited 0 timesPublished2024 NY Slip Op 24304 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 2, 2024
and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they have never been compelled by this Court as a matter of constitutional law, or even as a matter of federal procedure" ( Spencer v Texas , 385 US 554, 568 [1967]) the decision clearly … Since Erlinger thus established a new rule, not subject to either of the Teague exceptions, [FN2] it may not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review ( see People v Eastman , 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]; see also
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna