Case law

Hudson Valley Marine, Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt

79 A.D.3d 700 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 2010

As for the plaintiffs 42 USC § 1983 claims asserted against Miller and Conlon, they established, prima facie, their entitlement to qualified immunity by demonstrating that it was objectively reasonable for them to believe … that their acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights regardless of whether they made a mistake of law or fact in applying the Town Code (see Pearson v Callahan, 555 US 223 , —, 129 S Ct

Baez v. City of Amsterdam

245 A.D.2d 705 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 1997

immunity. … Although plaintiff maintains that Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment was premature absent a sharp factual dispute, the applicability of the qualified immunity doctrine, which shields from liability those official acts

Racalbuto v. Redmond

46 A.D.3d 1051 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 2007

Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for its highway planning decisions. Plaintiffs appeal. … Because defendant established its entitlement to summary *1052 judgment, we affirm.

Southworth v. State

62 A.D.2d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 1978

The trial court was clearly in error in holding that one convicted of driving while intoxicated was automatically ineligible for the Onondaga program. Quite the opposite was true. … The soundness of the established method of operation is beyond review (Kelly v State of New York, 57 AD2d 320, 328, 332 ) for the reason that such review would constitute a judicial incursion into the immunized area of basic

Bowden v. Iona Grammar School

284 A.D.2d 357 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 11, 2001

The plaintiffs established a likeli *359 hood of success on the merits. … Notably, the New Rochelle City School District informed the plaintiffs that the infant plaintiff would in all likelihood qualify for a religious exemption if he attended public school.

Redcross v. State

241 A.D.2d 787 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 24, 1997

It is also well settled that “in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Friedman v State of New York, supra, at 283) … “Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” (id., at 284 [citation omitted

People v. Urgitano

2026 NY Slip Op 02884 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 7, 2026

The supervising doctor was properly called to testify about the nature and extent of the victim's injuries and, given his experience in trauma care, was qualified to render an opinion about the victim's likely prognosis. … An immunity determination is subject to abuse of discretion review ( see CPL 50.20; 50.30), and there is no indication in the record that the witness at issue ever sought immunity for her alleged role in the incident as a

Drimer v. Zionist Org. of Am.

150 N.Y.S.3d 48 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2021

Therefore, the negligence claim is barred by the qualified immunity conferred upon uncompensated board members under N-PCL 720-a. … immunity, since that conclusion related to a different claim that was based on the specific allegations detailing the alleged unlawful retaliation.

Heins v. Vanbourgondien

180 A.D.3d 1019 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 2020

Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the [governmental body] is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision'" ( Tyberg v City of New York , 173 AD3d at 1240, quoting … "To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, the governmental body must demonstrate that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberate decision-making process'" (

Pietra v. State

125 A.D.2d 936 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 1986

Even assuming the Task Force’s action is not entitled to absolute immunity, nevertheless, the claim must be dismissed because of their good-faith qualified immunity. … No clearly established law existing, the Task Force’s action in obtaining in good faith this search warrant is cloaked with a qualified immunity requiring dismissal of this claim (see, Mitchell v Forsyth, supra; Harlow v

Ligoure v. City of New York

128 A.D.3d 1027 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2015

Such burden is met “by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” (Ural … Here, the appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the requested material was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and, therefore, is protected from disclosure by *1029 the qualified immunity privilege

Romeo v. State

273 A.D.2d 934 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 16, 2000

Claimant failed to establish the applicability of that manual. … “Strong policy considerations underpin the qualified immunity doctrine set forth in Weiss (supra), and in cases such as [this] where a governmental body has invoked the expertise of qualified employees, the Weiss directive

People v. Lebovitz

31 A.D.2d 960 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1969

In our opinion, the evidence of appellants’ guilt was convincingly established beyond a rea* *961 sonable doubt. There are, however, certain claimed errors presented by appellants which merit 'discussion. … The two questions to which the witness claimed privilege were only incidental and collateral and, clearly, the error was not substantial enough to justify a reversal (cf. United States v.

Evans v. Stranger

307 A.D.2d 439 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 3, 2003

Municipalities are granted qualified immunity from liability for roadway planning decisions unless the plan was “evolved without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis” (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 [1960]; see Affleck … Qualified immunity applies where the municipality has considered and made a reasoned determination on the same issue presented to the jury (see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 673 [1999]).

Rodrigues v. City of New York

193 A.D.2d 79 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 21, 1993

Thus, prosecutors acting in an " 'investigative’ ” or " 'administrative’ ” capacity are entitled only to qualified immunity. (Barr v Abrams, 810 F2d 358, 361 [2d Cir 1987].) … (But see, Cunningham v State of New York, 71 AD2d 181, 183 [prosecutor engaged in the role of an investigator "should not enjoy absolute but only qualified immunity”].)

McGowan v. State

41 A.D.3d 670 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2007

On appeal, the claimants contend, and the defendant concedes, that the Court of Claims erred “in finding . . . qualified immunity [for] a governmental function,” and agreed that in this case the defendant’s snow removal operations … Here, because the Court of Claims incorrectly determined that the defendant was immune, it dismissed the claim on the basis of the immunity defense.

Kasachkoff v. City of New York

107 A.D.2d 130 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 1985

to which it denied their motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and CPLR 3212, the latter part of the motion asserting that the defendants were either immune … from liability due to an absolute privilege or due to a qualified one as to which there was no issue of fact.

Liang v. Rosedale Group Home

19 A.D.3d 654 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 27, 2005

We reject the child care agency’s contention that it was entitled to the qualified immunity protection afforded by Social Services Law § 419. … “It is well settled that a claim of qualified immunity cannot be raised to bar inquiry into an agency’s or county’s alleged negligent supervision of children in foster care” (Merice v County of Westchester, 305 AD2d 383,

Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center

135 A.D.3d 686 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

The defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to a qualified privilege under 42 USC § 11111 (a), part of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which creates a qualified privilege for information provided … Among other things, he argues in his brief that he “clearly should be given the opportunity to depose each and every one of the Appellants.”

Moore v. Del-Rich Properties, Inc.

151 A.D.3d 1817 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 16, 2017

plaintiff could not establish a special relationship with the City; and that the City was immune from suit because its actions were discretionary. … Finally, even if plaintiff can establish a special duty or relationship, defendants may nevertheless be entitled to dismissal of the claims under the “governmental function immunity” defense, which provides, in pertinent