Case law

Cummings v. Manville

153 A.D.3d 58 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 2017

Defendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, has the burden of establishing as a matter of law that he is immune from liability pursuant to the statute (see generally Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003 … Accordingly, we conclude that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he is entitled as a matter of law to immunity under General Obligations Law § 9-103, and thus the court erred in granting defendant’s

ACQUEST WEHRLE, LLC v. TOWN OF AMHERST

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2015

We reject defendant’s contention that the state constitutional claims should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. “ ‘A government official is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her … As such, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. We reject defendant’s further contention that alleged evidentiary errors require a new trial.

Levi v. Kratovac

35 A.D.3d 548 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 2006

The defendants City of New York and City of New York Department of Transportation (hereinafter together the City) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … Because these improvements were made in accordance with a reasonable traffic plan made after an adequate study, the City is entitled to qualified immunity for liability arising out of these decisions (see Affleck v Buckley

Partridge v. State of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 3715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 2019

We now turn to defendant's assertions regarding the remaining elements of claimant's cause of action — that claimant failed to establish that defendant acted in a grossly irresponsible manner and that defendant is immune … Likewise, we do not find defendant immune from liability due to qualified privilege.

Ocean State Seafood, Inc. v. Capital Newspaper

112 A.D.2d 662 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1985

Therefore, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity which can be overcome only by proof that defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the ordinary standards of sound journalism … Finally, the article clearly can be read to charge plaintiffs with a course of conduct involving several wrongful acts in buying and selling contaminated and contraband clams.

Claude H. v. County of Oneida

214 A.D.2d 964 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 1995

Where a prosecutor goes outside his quasi-judicial role, however, and acts as an investigator or police officer, he is entitled only to qualified immunity (Burns v Reed, 500 US 478, 491-496 ; Rodrigues v City of New York, … In Baez, the Second Circuit concluded that the county could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior when a prosecutor uses improper methods to obtain an indictment because the county does not establish

Luckey v. City of New York

120 A.D.3d 403 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 7, 2014

The City’s reliance on governmental immunity is unavailing, since there are triable issues of fact as to whether the death was caused in part by a negligent failure to comply with mandatory rules and regulations of the New … Powell also failed to establish her entitlement to qualified immunity (see Anderson v Creighton, 483 US 635, 638 [1987]). The court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim against Perry.

Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese

5 A.D.3d 463 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 2004

Further, the plaintiff failed to establish a “strong showing of necessity” which is necessary to justify the disclosure of tax returns (Abbene v Griffin, 208 AD2d 483 [1994]). … Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 720-a confers a qualified immunity on uncompensated directors, officers, and trustees of certain not-for-profit corporations.

Frechette v. State

129 A.D.3d 1409 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 2015

Finally, we agree with the Court of Claims that defendant failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 When defendant undertakes a “stud[y] [oí] a dangerous condition and determines … Thus, given the lack of evidence that defendant “ ‘passed on the very same question of risk,’ ” it was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity (Ernest v Red Cr. Cent.

Sirlin v. Town of New Castle

15 A.D.3d 387 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 2005

Moreover, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the factual allegations in the complaint did not establish that the defense of qualified immunity applies (see Colao v Mills, 3 AD3d 702 [2004]; Kubik v New York State Dept

Prendergast v. Cosco

4 A.D.3d 880 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 11, 2004

Although a municipality is afforded qualified immunity from liability arising out of its decisions with respect to highway planning, it may be held liable when it “is made aware of a dangerous highway condition and does not … Thus, we conclude that the Village failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is entitled to immunity from liability as a matter of law (see Ernest, 93 NY2d at 672-673 ).

People v. Cole

196 A.D.2d 634 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 23, 1993

The evidence presented at the trial established that on the afternoon of August 4, 1985, the defendant and the victim became involved in an argument over drugs while standing in front of a bar on Fulton Street in Brooklyn … The jury’s determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

City of Rochester v. Union Free School District Number Four of Town of Livonia, Livingston County

255 A.D. 96 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1938

nothing more than shift from one person or class of property to another its proportionate share of the cost of government, the courts have favored such exemption only in those rare instances where the purpose of the statutes clearly … indicates the Legislature’s intent to give immunity from tax.

Chemical Bank v. National Union Fire Ins.

70 A.D.2d 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 1979

We are satisfied that defendant failed to sustain its burden of establishing the privileged character of the documents (Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287 ), and the order accordingly is reversed. … As to such documents when developed prior to litigation, the rule is: "Multi-motived reports do not warrant the immunity if litigation is but one of the motives.”

Murray v. City of New York

154 A.D.3d 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 24, 2017

We reject defendants’ contention that the gun, even if obtained pursuant to an illegal search, may be used to establish probable cause for the criminal prosecution (see Ostrover v City of New York, 192 AD2d 115, 118 [1st … Defendants contend that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims.

Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie

90 A.D.3d 841 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 2011

If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity (see Hayes v City of Amsterdam, 2 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2003]; Higgins v City of Oneonta, 208 AD2d 1067 , 1071 … These triable issues of fact with respect to whether *846 Labrada’s evaluation of probable cause was objectively reasonable preclude an award of summary judgment in favor of Labrada on the ground of qualified immunity (see

Martin v. Reedy

194 A.D.2d 255 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 6, 1994

However, municipalities enjoy 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” (Friedman v State of New York, supra, at 284).

Ahern v. State

244 A.D.2d 7 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 9, 1998

Claimants’ opposition to this branch of the State’s dismissal motion is based upon the Supremacy Clause 2 and the principle that “States may establish the rules of procedure governing litigation in their own courts * * * … will bow to the overriding interest in enforcing the clearly established rights of parties under controlling Federal law (see, Howlett v Rose, 496 US 356, 367 ; Felder v Casey, supra, at 144 ; Employees v Missouri Pub.

Lacey v. Horan

119 A.D.2d 806 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 1986

Lastly, we note that the doctrine of qualified governmental immunity enunciated in Weiss v Fote (supra), is not a basis for granting summary judgment to the county, as there are clearly factual disputes as to whether or not

Allan & Allan Arts Ltd. v. Rosenblum

201 A.D.2d 136 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 1, 1994

Studley, Inc. v Lefrak ( 50 AD2d 162, 165 , affd 41 NY2d 881 ): "We acknowledge that the rule of qualified privilege has been a traditional point of departure in the analysis of defamation suits vis-á-vis administrative proceedings … Its authority may be exercised only within bounds prescribed by statute or ordinance, and it may *142 act only after the basis for an action has been established by evidence adduced at a public hearing”]).