Sana Mahboob v. Food First Family Project, Inc., and New Start Development LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: October 25, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-06418
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK enen nnnnc nenenenecenceneeen semen nn nanifinnn meen XK SANA MAHBOOB, Plaintiff, v. : DECISION & ORDER : 21-CV-6418 (WFK) (JRC) FOOD FIRST FAMILY PROJECT, INC., and ; NEW START DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendants. : WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, I, United States District Judge: Before the Court are Plaintiffs motions in limine. ECF No. 61. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Sana Mahboob brings this action against Defendants Food First Family Project, Inc., and New Start Development LLC. Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions in limine to preclude certain evidence at trial. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motions. LEGAL STANDARD “The purpose of a motion in Jimine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” Gorbea v. Verizon New York, Inc., 11-CV-3758, 2014 WL 2916964, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2014) (Matsumoto, J.). District courts should exclude evidence on a motion in limine “only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” /d. (quoting United States v. Paredes, 176 F. Supp. 2d 179, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Leisure, J.)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Courts may exclude evidence if its probative value is “substantially outweighed” by a danger of “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. ANALYSIS I, The Court Precludes Defendants from Arguing Plaintiff’s Benefits Should Reduce Her Award. Having received unemployment benefits from the State of New York, Plaintiff now asks the Court “to preclude Defendants from arguing that [her] unemployment benefits are an offset to backpay.” Pl.’s Mot. im Limine at 1 (Mot. in Limine”), ECF No. 61. As support, Plaintiff cites the collateral source rule, which “permits a plaintiff to recover damages from a tortfeasor though the plaintiff has already received compensation for its injuries from a third-party and even when such an award would lead to double recovery.” Jn re State Street Bank and Trust Co. Erisa Litig., 579 F. Supp. 2d 512, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Holwell, J.). “Because of this rule, evidence as to Plaintiffs receipt of ... benefits from independent sources . . . would be irrelevant to the issue of Plaintiff's damages.” Lupia v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc.,21-CV-11077, 2023 WL 2387100, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2023) (Liman, J.); see also Cunningham y. Rederiet Vindeggen A/S, 333 F.2d 308, 316 (2d Cir. 1964) (“According to this doctrine, which is an established exception to the general rule that damages in a negligence action must be compensatory, a wrongdoer is not permitted to reduce a plaintiff's recovery because of benefits which the latter may have received from another source.”); but see Sass v. MTA Bus Co., 6 F. Supp. 3d 238, 255-56 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Brodie, J.) (“[W]here the payment of unemployment benefits is not from a ‘collateral’ source such as a state-run unemployment insurance fund, but instead is paid directly (or ‘effectively’) by the employer itself, several courts have declined to apply the collateral source rule.”).

Here, Plaintiff “received unemployment benefits from the State of New York,” not from her employer itself. Mot. in Limine at 2. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's unemployment benefits on the grounds such evidence would be unduly prejudicial and would violate the collateral source rule. For these reasons, the Court precludes Defendants from introducing evidence of Plaintiffs unemployment benefits. Il. The Court Excludes the EEOC’s Findings. In the parties’ joint pretrial order, Defendants assert the following defense: “[T]he U.S. Equal [Employment] Opportunity Commission made the determination that Plaintiffs claims were not sufficient to warrant any further processing of the charges . . . and accordingly closed its investigation without taking any further action or finding any wrongdoing on the part of Defendant Food First Family Project, Inc.” Joint Pretrial Order at 5, ECF No. 57. This defense is belied by the Notice of Right to Sue dated August 20, 2021, which the EEOC issued to Plaintiff because “more than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge”—not because the EEOC determined Defendants were blameless. See Notice of Right to Sue, ECF No. 11-1. Plaintiff thus asks the Court to “exclude the EEOC’s findings and prohibit Defendants from arguing to the jury that such findings were on the merits.” Mot. in Limine at 2. “Generally speaking, EEOC determinations are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the public records hearsay exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(C).” Dodson v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 331, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Holwell, J.) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), “Such documents are properly excluded, however, where the evidence’s probative value is substantiaily outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Jd. The Notice of Right to Sue provided to the Court has no probative value: it contains no factual findings or conclusions of law. It was issued on Plaintiff's request (and terminated the EEOC’s

investbiegcaatuisotenh )a1m n8od 0ra eyh sap da sssiendsc hfileee dt hceh arMgoeti..Ln i mine ats e2ae;l EsEoO Ch,tt ps://www.eeoc.g(olva/sfitlO icvn2tig2.s-, il ta2(ew0"dsy2I uo5fiu) t wantfi ltelo a aw sbueifotr e we hoauviren vfiensitsyihogceuaad trn ie oqune,s t a Notice RighttoS u.e. [.a ]1ft8ed0ra yhsa vpea sfrsoemdt hdea ytoeu crh awragfisel eIdf. wyaonut thEeE OtCoc ontiinnvuees tyiogucarht arigdneog,n r 'etq uae sNtoo tfRii gchett oS ue."). Furthertmhdoear neog,fe p rr ejaundcdio cnefu sitohines soiufgse r seb aetc austehE:eE O(C1) hanso t made findingPsl aoinnc tltiahfiaefmn s(sdm 2; se) ur bisttsea vnoitfdit eahnlwac ates

noptr esetnott heed EEObCep rweislealntt tr eiSdae Plea. o lvi.tt oJB orhoEnw& nC .,1 5I1nc., F.36d06 ,5( 2Cdi 1r9.9 8) ("tWeht ahbtdee i lsitcerovimiects t ibne pstoths eit toion cons.i.dt.ehl rei keltihhtaohttoe rd wi iadllel t eriinotprora otate r aancudtn epdr oductive strugogvlehero t wh eev idaednmcieatt tter dci oamlp atroe edtv hied ceonncsei bdye rtehde agencAyc.c"o)r.d tihCneog mlty ,g Prlaanitnmsto itfitfooesn x cltuhEdeEe O C's purported findianngtdsop rohDiebfeintd fraonmat rsg utihnepgsu erp 01fitneddi ngst hwmeee rrei tosn.

SOORD�

s/WFK /HON.Wf LLiAFM.� UNITESDT ATDEIS JUDGE DateOdc:t o2b4e,r 2025 BrookNleywYno ,r k