Case law

Sapienza v. Tromba

2025 NY Slip Op 04672 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 13, 2025

Public Health Law former § 3082 did not qualify "how treatment must be affected—whether positively, negatively, or otherwise—it merely require[d] that treatment be impacted" ( Holder v Jacob , 231 AD3d 78 , 85 [internal quotation … Nevertheless, the defendants established, prima facie, that the three requirements for immunity were satisfied with respect to their treatment of the plaintiff on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020 ( see generally Public

Cosme v. Town of Islip

102 A.D.2d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1984

Such a privilege confers absolute immunity from suit. … Clearly, the responses were within Cohalan’s competence and in the performance of his official duties as an elected official.

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

Munoz v. City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 02291 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 22, 2025

In their answer to plaintiff's complaint for negligence, defendants asserted four affirmative defenses: culpable conduct, assumption of risk, qualified immunity, and emergency doctrine. … Defendants failed to raise issues of fact as to the emergency doctrine or governmental immunity.

People v. Feerick

241 A.D.2d 126 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1998

We note that an indictment is not fatally tainted merely because someone involved in the criminal prosecution may have been exposed to a portion or all of a defendant’s immunized statement, although clearly precautions should … 226 AD2d 238, 239-240 , lv denied 88 NY2d 969 ; People v Melendez, 178 AD2d 366, 367 , lv denied 79 NY2d 950 ); even material bearing on the witness’s credibility must relate to the witness’s direct testimony in order to qualify

Buhr v. State

295 A.D.2d 462 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 2002

The claimant subsequently commenced this claim against the State of New York, contending that the State was not entitled to qualified immunity since its decision not to install traffic lights at the subject intersection was … It is well settled that “the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Fr iedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 ).

Deringer v. Rossi

260 A.D.2d 305 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1999

There is a principle of qualified immunity that prevents a trier of facts from second-guessing the planning decisions of governmental bodies regarding such operations as traffic control and regulation (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d … Once a municipality determines to remedy a potentially dangerous traffic condition, any delay in doing so can expose the municipality to liability, notwithstanding the qualified governmental immunity (Pizzi v City of New

Kempster v. Child Protective Services

130 A.D.2d 623 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 1987

The reporting requirements which trigger the qualified immunity provision contained in Social Services Law § 419 are not predicated upon actual or conclusive proof of abuse or maltreatment. … With reference to the facts before us, we conclude that the medical data and other available information clearly indicated that further investigation of possible maltreatment was warranted in view of the fact that the infant

Valdez v. City of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 06589 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 24, 2024

S., and that Kamna's actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … I also disagree with the panel majority that the defendants established, as a matter of law, that Kamna was protected by qualified immunity.

Jefferson v. Village of Ossining

18 A.D.3d 502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 2005

injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered October 19, 2004, which *503 denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds of qualified … immunity for authorized emergency vehicles under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 and that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

People v. Greenberg

50 A.D.3d 195 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 2008

The proponent of the privilege bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from disclosure (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]). … As noted above, defendants have clearly made such a showing.

Schettino v. Alter

140 A.D.2d 600 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 23, 1988

The Clients’ Security Fund (hereinafter the Fund) was established by legislation enacted in 1981 "to promote public confidence in the administration of justice and integrity of the legal profession by reimbursing losses caused … licensing real estate brokers]; Jafar v Blue Cross Blue Shield, 129 Misc 2d 584 , affd 125 AD2d 1015 [statements made at Medicare overcharge hearing]; but cf., Toker v Pollak, supra [complaint to District Attorney subject to qualified

Morris v. Ontario County

152 A.D.3d 1185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 2017

We conclude that the County failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment based on qualified immunity (see Betts v Town of Mount Morris, 78 AD3d 1597, 1598 [2010]). … afforded immunity from judicial interference” (id., citing Appelbaum v County of Sullivan, 222 AD2d 987, 989 [1995]).

Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

140 A.D.2d 198 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 1988

The memorandum is clearly an internal, confidential document. Nothing indicates that anyone outside the defendant company had access to it. In the document Mr. Blaney makes evaluations and offers legal advice. … The second reason for finding against disclosure is that the document, which contains the attorney’s legal analysis and conclusions, is immune from discovery as an attorney’s work product pursuant to CPLR 3101 (c).

Boyd v. Trent

262 A.D.2d 260 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1999

Furthermore, the Town failed to sustain its initial burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity because it submitted no evidence that its decision to refrain … from placing a speed reduction sign at the approach to the curve “was the product of a deliberative decision-making process of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference” (Appelbaum v County of Sullivan, 222 AD2d

Schapers v. West Lawrence Care Ctr., LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 04928 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 10, 2025

To qualify for immunity, a health care facility is required to demonstrate that it met three requirements: that (1) the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance … Nevertheless, the defendant's submissions to the Supreme Court did not conclusively establish that the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA were satisfied so as to show that the plaintiff had no cause of action

Duffy v. Kipers

26 A.D.2d 127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1966

The Trial Justice charged the doctrine of qualified privilege, but made no reference to absolute privilege. Neither party took any exception nor made any request to charge. … Or as Professor Prosser put it: “privilege and truth—are complete defenses, avoiding all liability when they are established.” (Prosser, Torts [3d ed.], § 109, p. 795.)

Sonne v. Board of Trustees of Village of Suffern

67 A.D.3d 192 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 2009

defense of qualified immunity which applies if their conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’ ” (Pearson v Callahan, 555 US —, —, 129 … He established as a matter of law that, although he may have mistakenly violated the plaintiffs rights under the Village of Suffern Code in a good faith attempt to enforce village policy, he did not violate clearly established

Holder v. Jacob

2024 NY Slip Op 03864 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 2024

, defendants' failure to conclusively establish the immunity statute's applicability, as written, that compels our conclusion. … None, however, has found that a defendant established its entitlement to immunity for the acts or omissions of a medical provider under the Executive Order, where it had not established entitlement to such immunity under

Schottenstein v. Silverman

128 A.D.3d 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 26, 2015

Defendant’s communications are not cloaked with absolute immunity since there is no showing that he was engaged in a public function when he published the report (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 20; Toker v Pollak, 44 NY2d … Nor are defendant’s communications subject to qualified immunity since plaintiffs detailed allegations, accepted as true for purposes of this motion, are “sufficient to potentially establish [actual] malice” (see Weiss v