Case law

Callesto v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

587 F. Supp. 1427 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 5, 1984

Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979). … See, Aubeuf v. Schweiker, supra, at 115-116. Cf., Atkins v. Califano, 446 F.Supp. 1017, 1022 (N.D.Ill.1978).

Bachman

District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 9, 2025

(quoting Brown v. Daikin Am. Inc., 756 F.3d 219, 230 (2d Cir. 2014)). Plaintiffs have not met that burden here. … Putt, 979 F.3d 128, 136 (2d Cir. 2020) (plaintiff’s substantive due process claim subsumed by the alleged First Amendment violations); see also Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 94 (2d Cir. 2005) (same); Brown v.

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-Cherin

531 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 24, 2008

Lamers v. … However, the service is designed so that any member of the public want *511 ing to travel along that route is able to board.

Coston v. Commissioner of NYSDOCCS

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 9, 2020

United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995). Thus, “a strong presumption of public access” attaches to “evidence introduced at trial or in connection with summary judgment.” Brown v. … See Brown, 929 F.3d at 49. Although he claims that they contain “sensitive . . . legal details,” it is unclear why such details are confidential. Cf. Jackson v.

McCarthy v. Colvin

66 F. Supp. 3d 315 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 13, 2014

v. … See Pratts v.

Moxley v. Regional Transit Services

722 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 17, 1989

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Beyah v. Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir.1986). … However, as this policy clearly altered the terms and conditions of employment to which union employees were subject, it is commited to the exclusive nondelegable jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board.

United States v. Abbarno

342 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 12, 1972

At this .time I also noticed a draftsmans board with a magnifying glass attached in the same office. … In Jones v.

Howze v. Mondelez Global LLC

District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 5, 2023

and Brown Sugar”) where “neither of the Products’ names advertises ‘maple syrup’ or ‘maple sugar”); Turnipseed v. … Brown v. Kerry, Inc., No. 20- 9370, 2021 WL 5446007, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021) (emphasis added).

Evans v. MassMutual Financial Group

856 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 13, 2012

Morris-Hayes v. Board of Educ. of Chester Union Free Sch. Dist., 423 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir.2005). … See Curby v. Archon, 216 F.3d 549, 556-57 (6th Cir.2000). As explained in Woodard v.

Porter v. Selsky

287 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2003

See 42 U.S.C. § 1986 ; Brown v. City of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329, 341 (2d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 816 , 122 S.Ct. 44 , 151 L.Ed.2d 16 (2001); Rivera v. Goord, 119 F.Supp.2d 327, 346 (S.D.N.Y.2000). … See, e.g., Lisbon v. Goord, 2003 WL 1990291 (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2003) (citing Bolanos); Baker v. Finn, 2001 WL 1338919 (S.D.N.Y. October 31, 2001) (same); People v.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 23, 2024

See Grey v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1983); Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 1979). … Dekeon and Brown) and a non- treating consultant (Dr. Porcelli) who examined Plaintiff on a single occasion.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Goldman

446 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 14, 1978

In McCarty v. … In Hess v. W. & J.

Abraham v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

103 F.R.D. 358 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 10, 1984

Novosel v. Northway Motor Car Corp., 460 F.Supp. 541, 543 (N.D.N.Y.1978). Plaintiffs argue that under Bell v. … Health City School District Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278-79 , 97 S.Ct. 568, 571-72 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).

D'ALESSANDRO v. Mukasey

628 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 29, 2009

This applies with equal force to the Board and the Attorney General. … In short, as long as the regulations remain operative, the Attorney General denies himself the right to sidestep the Board or dictate its decision in any manner.”)); Bridges v.

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

529 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 2, 2008

See Collins v. … See Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir.2001); Brown v. The Pension Boards, 488 F.Supp.2d 395, 410 (S.D.N.Y.2007). 12 .Defendants deny that plaintiff was replaced at all.

Flanagan v. Travelers Insurance

111 F.R.D. 42 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 25, 1986

James v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 591 F.2d 579 (10th Cir.1979); Marshall v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 576 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.1978); EEOC v. … Packard Electric Division, General Motors Corp., 569 F.2d 315 (5th Cir.1978); Robbins v. Camden City Board of Education, 105 F.R.D. 49 (D.N.J.1985); Witten v. A.H. Smith & Co., 100 F.R.D. 446 (D.Md. 1984); Prouty v.

Lerner v. FNB Rochester Corp.

841 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 28, 1993

“The acquisition and diversification strategy was at the direction of defendants Beh and Calabrese and those of their colleagues then on the Board. … Citing Chiarella v.

Avant v. County of Erie

District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 29, 2024

Docket Item 47 at 4 (citing Jemmott v. … Zilioli v. City of New York, 2020 WL 1548763, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020) (quoting Ehrens v.

Robinson v. Allstate

706 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Bane v. … See Brown v. City of Oneonta, New York, 221 F.3d 329 , 341 (2d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 816 , 122 S.Ct. 44 , 151 L.Ed.2d 16 (2001); Howell v.

Woods v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 27, 2023

In light of the above, the Court finds that a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in Plaintiff’s counsel’s hours is warranted. See Robert D. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:17CV00075(AWT), 2022 WL 633731, at *4 (D. … Mar. 4, 2022) (collecting cases recognizing the district court’s discretion to make an across-the-board cut in attorney’s fees award ranging from 5% to 50%); Maerkel v. Comm’r of Soc.