Case law

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

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

People v. Harris

268 A.D. 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1945

Department of Water and Water Supply of said city, effective as of May 15, 1944, viz., Superintendent of Water Bent Delinquencies, and it fixed the salary of said position and generally defined its duties, the creation or establishment … For one to rely upon the protection of the privileges and immunities afforded by fundamental law, and other law, is, of course, no offense.

Ames v. City of New York

177 A.D.2d 528 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 1991

"Under * * * 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 trafile plan * * * Once the [governmental … In light of this evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that the City’s qualified immunity defense was properly rejected as a matter of law.

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.

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments

21 A.D.3d 90 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 2005

The record clearly shows that from this point *95 forward defendant’s investment officer engaged in very purposeful activity by negotiating a cash deal instead of a swap. … Defendant requests further discovery to establish its claim of insider trading.

Reed's of Armonk Building Supply, Inc. v. Curry

246 A.D.2d 587 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 20, 1998

On the record before us, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show that it had a clearly established right to approval of the amended site plan which it claims was wrongfully denied *588 (see, Tarry Corp. v Friedlander … Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant enjoys qualified immunity (see, Natale v Town of Ridgefield, 927 F2d 101, 104).

Lewis v. City of New York

131 A.D.3d 1134 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 23, 2015

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity.

Macareno v. City of New York

187 A.D.3d 1164 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2020

immunity ( Escalera v Lunn , 361 F3d 737, 746 [2d Cir]; see Williams v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1301, 1304 ). … For the same reason, Officer Rendon was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity ( see Williams v City of New York , 129 AD3d 1066, 1067 ).

MARROW, DEBORAH E. v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 2013

Here, defendant did not raise the defense of qualified immunity in its answer to the claim or at trial (cf. … Indeed, defendant’s expert admitted that there was no “plan” with respect to that decision, and we thus conclude that defendant failed to establish that the qualified immunity doctrine is applicable.

Wright v. City of Buffalo

137 A.D.3d 1739 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 2016

immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officer [s] involved to believe that [their] conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of reasonable competence could … immunity.

Moulton v. State

114 A.D.3d 115 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 2013

More recently, the Second Circuit held that, as of its 2006 decision in Earley , it was clearly established, for purposes of qualified immunity, that administrative imposition of PRS violated federal due process guarantees … immunity.

Jones v. County of Niagara

15 A.D.3d 1002 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 4, 2005

Defendant City of Lockport (City) moved and defendant County of Niagara (County) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, contending, inter alia, that they had qualified governmental immunity … upon documents that were not established as authoritative with respect to the standard of care for construction in New York State (see generally Merino v New York City Tr.

People v. Bartolomeo

126 A.D.2d 375 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1987

That’s clearly an admission. It would have been relevant. It would have been admissible. "[The Prosecutor]: It’s clearly hearsay, Your Honor. What Manteiga had to say to his wife from—about Bartolomeo. "the court: Yes. … Caprisecca had executed a waiver of immunity when he testified before the Grand Jury; however, it was never revealed that he had been promised immunity from prosecution for those crimes.

Graff v. State of New York

126 A.D.3d 1081 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 2015

"[I]n the field of traffic design engineering, [defendant] is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision. . . . … 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.

Harford v. City of New York

194 A.D.2d 519 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1993

It is well established that the decision as to whether to install a traffic control device is a discretionary governmental function which will not expose a municipality to liability (see, Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 586 ; Alexander … The failure to make such a determination is clothed in a qualified immunity and, therefore, the defendant City of New York cannot be held liable.

Marrow v. State

105 A.D.3d 1371 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 2013

Here, defendant did not raise the defense of qualified immunity in its answer to the claim or at trial (cf. … Indeed, defendant’s expert admitted that there was no “plan” with respect to that decision, and we thus conclude that defendant failed to establish that the qualified immunity doctrine is applicable.

Handlin v. Burkhart

101 A.D.2d 850 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 21, 1984

A qualified privilege does not afford a defendant an absolute immunity, but it does negate any presumption of implied malice flowing from the defamatory statement (see Toker v Poliak, supra; 35 NY Jur, Libel and Slander, … Mataxes’ affidavit and supporting documentation in opposition to the motion for summary judgment is devoid of the requisite evidentiary facts needed to establish that defendants were motivated by malice.

J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

102 A.D.2d 240 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 11, 1984

The court found that the California resale price maintenance scheme satisfied the first prong of' the test for antitrust immunity, in that the legislative policy of permitting resale price maintenance was clearly reflected … A two-pronged test for determining the applicability of antitrust immunity has been established: “First, the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy’; second, the

Kolko v. City of Rochester

93 A.D.2d 977 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1983

Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts which would destroy the limited immunity protecting the defendant police officers while they executed the facially valid warrant in discharge of their - public responsibilities (see, generally … While Harris involved a motion for summary judgment, an affidavit by defendant established a qualified privilege and an absence of malice. In Privitera, the utterance at issue was not slander per se.