Case law

BRIDENBAKER, JEAN v. CITY OF BUFFALO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 2016

“If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity” (Holland, 90 AD3d at 844). … immunity.

Becher v. Troy Publishing Co.

183 A.D.2d 230 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 5, 1992

The case law has established a liberal interpretation of the "fair and true report” standard of Civil Rights Law § 74 so as to provide broad protection to news accounts of judicial or other official proceedings. … The article as a whole may nevertheless be substantially accurate so as to qualify as a fair and true report (see, Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67-68 , supra; Briarcliff

Matter of Luongo v. Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd.

150 A.D.3d 13 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 2017

The plain text of the statute “unambiguously defines the records that are immune from indiscriminate disclosure” and establishes “a legal process whereby the confidentiality of the records may be lifted by a court, but only … CCRB findings and recommendations are clearly of significance to superiors in evaluating police officers’ performance.

Cicci v. Chemung County

122 A.D.3d 1181 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 2014

Police officers performing their governmental duty are entitled to qualified immunity “as long as their actions did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established legal rights” (Colao v Mills, 39 AD3d 1048, 1050 [2007]; see … Moreover, defendants submitted sufficient unrebut *1183 ted proof to establish the exigent circumstances exception for a warrantless entry (see generally People v McBride, 14 NY3d 440, 445 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131

People v. Pauley

281 A.D. 223 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1953

She said she knew of no reason not touched upon by the attorneys, of which they should be apprised “ in order to make a determination upon yourself as a qualified juror in this case.” … It need not, alone and by itself, establish that defendant committed the crime.

Donaldson v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2025 NY Slip Op 02719 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 2025

Instead, we find that the Port Authority clearly established that it took various steps to address the deaths by suicide that were occurring on the bridge and asserted its position under governmental immunity and ordinary … Rather, defendant argued only that it was entitled to governmental immunity[*13].

Cohen v. State of NY

51 A.D.2d 494 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1976

While this record establishes that patients were discussed at team meetings, it is not established that any evaluation of this decedent’s suicide propensities was made by a qualified psychiatrist during his stay at the hospital … In our opinion, under such circumstances, the award of damages is clearly excessive, there being no fair basis for the same.

Ballinger v. City of Mount Vernon

2024 NY Slip Op 06179 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 2024

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. … immunity ( see MacDonald v Town of Greenburgh , 112 AD3d 586, 587 ; Diederich v Nyack Hosp. , 49 AD3d 491, 493 ).

Santero v. Kotwal

4 A.D.3d 464 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 17, 2004

While the incident report may be protected from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m, any statements therein made by an individual defendant to this action are not immune from disclosure … The plaintiff established that the urological examination sought by the defendants is potentially harmful, and clearly invasive.

New York State Department of Taxation v. Bramhall

235 A.D.2d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1997

The Department established that neither Bramhall nor Fad-dies produced that form for inspection. … The immunity from taxation that respondents claim here is not conferred by Federal treaties (see, 7 US Stat 15, 33, 44, 586) or by case law interpreting those treaties (see, New York Indians, 5 Wall [72 US] 761; Snyder v

Ramo v. Serrano

289 A.D.2d 317 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 10, 2001

as a matter of law based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The appellant’s contention that it was not required to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is without merit (see, Boyd v Trent, 262 AD2d 260, 261 ; Durrett v Town of Brookhaven, 268 AD2d 405

Ames Contracting Co. v. City University

108 A.D.2d 609 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 1985

In establishing the Court of Claims, the State waived its common-law immunity from suit. … The agreement between the parties clearly contemplated either the purchase of the building by the Board for the nominal *612 sum of $1 upon the expiration of the lease or its removal by Ames.

People ex rel. Patterson v. Board of Education

269 A.D. 39 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 1945

Her tenure does not make her immune from removal. … Every examination made resulted in a finding that she was physically qualified to teach.

Gurbanova v. City of Ithaca

2025 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 2025

Here, Zemeck clearly stated his opinion that the bollards were unsafe from the moment they were installed, because asphalt is not a dense enough material to keep the bolts attaching them in place. … Rather, the issue is whether it was on a "highway," and photographs clearly show that it was installed in an area where cars were not allowed to drive or park.

In re Proceedings to Disbar Bevans

225 A.D. 427 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 20, 1929

The respondent can gain no immunity or privilege by inserting such matter in a pleading where he fails to establish its truth on a trial or by other means. … The acts and the attitude of the respondent are clearly indicative of professional misconduct and illustrative of a mind barren of conceptions of ethics.

Hughes Village Restaurant, Inc. v. Village of Castleton-On-Hudson

46 A.D.3d 1044 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 2007

After issue was joined and discovery completed, defendants moved for summary judgment based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity; plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. … In reaching this determination, claims predicated upon an established state procedure must be distinguished from those arising from “random, unauthorized acts by state employees” (Hellenic Am.

People ex rel. Weber & Heilbroner, Inc. v. Graves

249 A.D. 49 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 11, 1936

Clearly such was not the intention of the Legislature in enacting this law. … On the contrary, it is plain that the broadest possible base was intended and hence the presumption was created that “ all receipts are subject to the tax until the contrary is established.”

Cohen v. Cohen

1 A.D.2d 586 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1956

Special Term held and the majority of this court is now holding by implication, albeit very much qualified, that one who fraudulently obtains a written agreement may obtain immunity for his fraud by including in such agreement … A contract once established precludes parol evidence; but it is always possible to resist the establish *592 ment of the contract by a parol showing of fraud.

Purex Industries, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

110 A.D.2d 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 26, 1985

These appeals raise the question of whether a qualified out-of-State self-insurer is an “insurer” within the province of New York’s no-fault insurance law. … On the contrary, the regulations clearly provide for mandatory arbitration between insurance companies or self-insurers.

Mason v. First Central National Life Insurance

86 A.D.3d 854 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 2011

In our view, under these circumstances, the contents of decedent’s medical records are not so “essentially undeniable” as to qualify as documentary evidence that conclusively refutes any claim that plaintiff might have to … While Supreme Court’s order referenced CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the content of its order clearly suggests that the court based its dismissal of the complaint on CPLR 3211 (a) (1).