Case law

Ryan v. Fahey

43 A.D.2d 429 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1974

Bather, we are permitting recovery, previously denied, after the liability has been established.” (23 N Y 2d 434, 439.) … S. 518) are clearly inapposite.

WILLIAMS, APRIL M. v. FASSINGER, CHARLES A.

119 A.D.3d 1368 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 3, 2014

immunity by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e). … We further conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that defendant officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556-557),

KIRCHNER, JASON v. COUNTY OF NIAGARA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2013

We also reject the contention of the County of Niagara and Caldwell that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff alleged that Caldwell’s actions were made in bad faith, thus precluding application of the defense of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation (cf. Arzeno v Mack, 39 AD3d 341, 342).

People v. Collins

288 A.D.2d 756 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 29, 2001

The transcript of the colloquy between defendant and the court clearly reflects, inter alia, that defendant was advised of the nature of the charges against him and his right to an attorney, and that he declined assistance … 190.52 [1]) and executed a valid waiver of immunity (CPL 190.40 [2] [a]; 190.45 *758 [1], [2]), which was submitted to the Grand Jury (CPL 190.50 [5] [b]).

Kirchner v. County of Niagara

107 A.D.3d 1620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2013

Prosecutors are afforded only qualified immunity when acting in an investigative capacity (see id. at 275 ; Johnson, 308 AD2d at 285 ; Claude H. v County of Oneida, 214 AD2d 964, 965 [1995]). … We also reject the contention of the County of Niagara and Caldwell that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Buckley v. 112 Central Park South, Inc.

285 A.D. 331 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1954

The court then proceeded to discuss other legal points on the assumption that a valid contract had been established. … We said that “ in converting corporate property to his own use, the officer clearly is not acting as such for the corporation but in his own interest against the corporation. ’ ’ ( 271 App. Div. 62 , 64.)

American Bible Society v. Lewisohn

48 A.D.2d 308 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1975

We find that the record clearly establishes that petitioner is not organized exclusively "for religious, charitable * * * educational, moral or mental improvement * * * purposes, but * * * is organized * * * exclusively for … note, that even to the extent that petitioner’s activities are religious within the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, such, nevertheless, does not mean that petitioner’s property is therefore immune

Harris v. Seneca Promotions, Inc.

149 A.D.3d 1508 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 2017

NWSC appeals from an order that denied its motion for a protective order and directed respondent to comply fully with the subpoena by producing the documents specified by petitioner and a witness qualified to testify on all … Finally, NWSC did not request a hearing on the issue whether sovereign immunity bars enforcement of the subpoena, and thus failed to preserve for our review its present contention that the matter should be remitted for that

Starkman v. City of Long Beach

106 A.D.3d 1076 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2013

In their answer, the defendants asserted six affirmative defenses, including an affirmative defense based upon a qualified immunity pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, and an affirmative defense based upon the common-law … Under the principles of ordinary negligence, Officer DeMarco’s failure to see what was there to be seen established the plaintiffs entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Mohammad v Ning,

In re Cullinan

3 Liquor Tax Rep. 127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1903

in what manner and under what circumstances it may be revoked, and while it is equally true that the holder takes it subject to the provisions of law attached to it in that *129 respect, these facts must be deemed to be qualified … In any proceeding by the State to deprive him of the one or the other, the facts which in law justify it must be alleged and established.

Dixon v. 105 West 75th Street LLC

148 A.D.3d 623 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 2017

Landlord satisfied its burden of demonstrating that it made the necessary improvements to qualify for first rent, since it established that it substantially altered the character of the apartment by connecting it to the new … The approved plans and certificates of occupancy establish quite clearly that the work resulted in a substantial reconfiguration of the apartment and expansion of the space such that it qualified for first rent.

In re Cullinan

82 A.D. 445 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

provide in what manner and under what circumstances it may be revoked, and while it is equally true that the holder takes it subject to the provisions of law attached to it in that respect, these facts must be deemed to be qualified … In any proceeding by the State to deprive him of the one or the other, the facts which in law justify it must be alleged and established.

Pleva v. County of Suffolk

2023 NY Slip Op 06394 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 2023

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action alleging negligence by submitting, inter alia, a transcript [*2]of the plaintiff's testimony at … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on state law claims if their actions are "objectively reasonable" ( Holland v City of Poughkeepsie , 90 AD3d 841, 846 ; see Lepore v Town of Greenburgh , 120 AD3d 1202, 1203

Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Institute

260 A.D. 189 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 1940

Special Term granted the motion and declined jurisdiction of the action, holding -that the claim of immunity was established on the record submitted. … It must, therefore, be deemed to be the law as established by these cases that the right of immunity of the property of a foreign government exists when said property is owned by the foreign government and possessed by it

Elie v. St. Barnabas Hospital

283 A.D.2d 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 31, 2001

However, while “[i]t is well established that in order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, … Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s contention that it is entitled to qualified immunity, which ordinarily attaches only when a governmental official is “performing a discretionary function” (Liu v New York City Police

Zervos v. Trump

2019 NY Slip Op 1851 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 14, 2019

Fitzgerald contended that Nixon could only claim qualified immunity, which only protected the President from certain suits. In contrast, Nixon claimed he was entitled to absolute immunity for his official acts. … In furtherance of this rationale, cabinet members and presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity to protect the free flow of ideas during communications with the President ( Harlow v Fitzgerald , 457 US 800, 810

Winney v. County of Saratoga

252 A.D.2d 882 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 1998

The next recorded event happened on May 23, 1995 when Supreme Court established an October 30, 1995 trial date. This evidently prompted defendant to move for summary judgment returnable June 19, 1995. … Thus, in our opinion, for the purposes of this motion, plaintiff has established a meritorious cause of action since there is a question as to whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in light of its guardrail

Ohdan v. City of New York

268 A.D.2d 86 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 27, 2000

Such unprofessional behavior clearly does not fall within the range of discretionary decisions immunized by public policy. … Immunity will not cloak the actions of an officer who “affirmatively intervened in a dangerous situation and negligently caused injury to a bystander, by acts which deviated from clearly accepted and established protocols

Kissinger v. State

126 A.D.2d 139 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 12, 1987

The State, however, is not an insurer and pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine set forth in the seminal Weiss case, "liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may only … These circumstances prevailing, a predicate for liability against the State for inadequate study was not established.

New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal v. Milburn Sales Co.

105 A.D.3d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 2013

Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing that the requested material was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and, thus, is protected from disclosure by the qualified immunity privilege of CPLR … Since the plaintiff did not establish that the requested material was protected by the qualified immunity privilege set forth in CPLR 3101 (d) for material prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation, there was no