Case law

Kelley v. State

133 A.D.3d 1337 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 20, 2015

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim based on its affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … The Court of Claims granted the motion in part, determining that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity insofar as claimants alleged that defendant was negligent in its decision-making process.

McArthur v. Muhammad

46 A.D.3d 640 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 2007

The matter is before us on a motion by the County for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against it on the ground of qualified immunity. … Since it was unable to demonstrate the adequacy of those studies (see Scott v City of New York, 16 AD3d 485 [2005]), the County therefore failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see

Appelbaum v. County of Sullivan

222 A.D.2d 987 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1995

Alternatively, defendant suggests that plaintiff has failed to show that the asserted deficiencies were violative of any established standard, or that they were a proximate cause of the accident. … The first of these arguments must be rejected, for it is defendant who has the burden initially of demonstrating, prima facie, its right to judgment on the basis of qualified immunity; it must show that the decision to refrain

Winkler v. Spinnato

134 A.D.2d 66 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1987

Certainly, based upon dicta such as this, an argument can be made that the amendments now under review, which clearly discriminate against residents of other States, and which clearly bias employment opportunities in favor … The plaintiffs first invoked the Privileges and Immunities Clause in a *69 proposed amended complaint, dated May 7, 1987. The record on appeal does not establish whether leave to serve this complaint was ever granted.

Board of Education of Northport-East v. Ambach

90 A.D.2d 227 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 1982

graduate, is clearly within the authority and power of respondents. … did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware (see, e.g., Harlow v Fitzgerald,_US_, 73 L ed 2d 396, 408-409).

Belonzi v. Town of Brookhaven

227 A.D.2d 361 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 1996

immunity so long as its traffic safety decision had a rational basis and was not plainly inadequate (see, e.g., Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 ; Harford v City of New York, 194 AD2d 519 ; cf., Burgess v Town of Hempstead, 161 … Indeed, all of the evidence in the case indicates that the stop sign was clearly visible, and that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s own reckless behavior in speeding into the intersection without stopping or slowing

Stack v. State

148 A.D.2d 991 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 10, 1989

It is well established that "when a municipality studies a dangerous condition and determines as part of a reasonable plan of governmental services that certain steps need not be taken, that decision may not form the basis … Thus, in the circumstances of this case, the State has qualified immunity from liability arising out of a reasoned highway planning decision (see, Friedman v State of New York, supra, at 283; see, Weiss v Fote, supra, at

Ruda v. State

279 A.D.2d 463 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 2001

The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the statements were absolutely privileged (see, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 208 ; Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613 … Furthermore, the defendant established that it was entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because Shepherd’s statements were communicated only to persons with a common interest in the subject matter

Larabee v. Governor of the State

65 A.D.3d 74 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2009

Even if legislative statements resulting in a decision or action are immune, the unlawful discharge of an immunized decision might not itself be within the circle of immunity, if it is not essential to legislative independence … We are also mindful of the many concerns set forth in the record about the future retention of qualified jurists and the attraction of highly qualified attorneys to the bench as judges retire or otherwise leave.

Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center

73 A.D.3d 966 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2010

The defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden on the qualified privilege of reply (see Shenkman v O’Malley, 2 AD2d 567, 574-577 [1956]; Collier v Postum Cereal Co., Ltd., 150 App Div 169, 178 [1912]). … The defendants were not entitled to immunity under 42 USC § 11112 (a), nor were they substantially prevailing parties.

Hunter v. Lourdes Hosp.

2019 NY Slip Op 5831 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 2019

Where these mandated reporters discharge their reporting duties in good faith, they are accorded qualified immunity from civil liability ( see Social Services Law § 419). … "The reporting requirements [that] trigger the qualified immunity provision in Social Services Law § 419 are not predicated upon actual or conclusive proof of abuse or maltreatment.

James v. New York State Bridge Authority

295 A.D.2d 316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2002

In the field of highway safety planning, a municipality is immune from liability for negligence for acts involving discretion *317 (see Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97 ; Lewis v State of New York, 70 AD2d 706 , 708 … Under these circumstances, the Bridge Authority established that it has qualified immunity, the opinions of the plaintiffs expert contradicting the speed report notwithstanding (see Affleck v Buckley, 96 NY2d 553, 557 ; Schuster

Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority

295 A.D.2d 333 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2002

The Supreme Court was not obligated by the doctrine of the law of the case to follow a determination of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of a federal … v Masto, 83 AD2d 725 , affd 56 NY2d 665 ), and the application of qualified immunity to the facts of this case (see Quigley v City of Auburn, 267 AD2d 978, 979 ; cf.

Hephzibah v. City of New York

124 A.D.3d 442 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2015

Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that she was owed a special duty. … We note that the police conduct at issue clearly involved the exercise of discretion in making an arrest (see Johnson v City of New York, 15 NY3d 676, 681 [2010]; see also McLean v City of New York, *443 12 NY3d 194, 202

KELLEY, LISA v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 20, 2015

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim based on its affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … “Under [the] 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” (Friedman v State of New

Powers v. Groodt

43 A.D.3d 509 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 2, 2007

of immunity to TVFC. … We conclude, as did Supreme Court, that none of these allegations sufficiently establishes petitioner’s standing.

Erie County Agricultural Society v. Cluchey

49 A.D.2d 40 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1975

The property must also be used for a purpose recognized by the Legislature as qualifying for tax exemption (see Real Property Tax Law, art 4 generally). … Property used primarily to obtain revenue or profit is not held for a public use and is not ordinarily immune from taxation, but property held by a State agency primarily for a public use does not lose immunity because the

Lowman v. Dankert

39 A.D.3d 1273 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 2007

The acts of North and Peters were performed in the exercise of their judicial functions as town justices of the Town of Collins, and those defendants are thus immune from liability (see generally Murray v Brancato, 290 NY … The evidence further establishes that “it was objectively reasonable for [Dankert] to believe that [her] conduct was appropriate under the circumstances,” and thus her conduct is subject to a qualified privilege (Baez v City

Leon v. New York City Transit Authority

96 A.D.3d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2012

To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, a governmental body must show that “a public planning body considered and passed upon the same question of risk as would go to a jury in the case at issue” (Jackson v New … This is insufficient to demonstrate the TA’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

Leon v. New York City Transit Authority

96 A.D.3d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2012

To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, a governmental body must show that “a public planning body considered and passed upon the same question of risk as would go to a jury in the case at issue” (Jackson v New … This is insufficient to demonstrate the TA’s entitlement to qualified immunity.