Case law

Dangler v. Town of Whitestown

241 A.D.2d 290 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1998

In its charge, the court instructed the jury that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from October 12, 1988 to January 1, 1991 and that the jury could consider whether plaintiffs had assumed the risk of living near … Thus, the court should not have charged the jury that qualified immunity applied to the acts of defendant from October 12, 1988 to January 1, 1991.

Linen v. County of Rensselaer

274 A.D.2d 911 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 2000

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of plaintiffs claims, defendants must establish that it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their conduct in retaining plaintiff was appropriate under the

Acquest Wehrle, LLC v. Town of Amherst

129 A.D.3d 1644 · 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.

Bednoski v. County of Suffolk

145 A.D.3d 943 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 2016

The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it was entitled to qualified governmental immunity for its highway planning decisions, that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, and … Contrary to the County’s contention, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified governmental immunity.

Rosado v. City of New Rochelle

153 N.Y.S.3d 71 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 11, 2021

The City moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it was entitled to qualified immunity arising out of a highway planning decision. … Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision" ( Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d at 283 ; see Poveromo v Town

Corvetti v. Town of Lake Pleasant

146 A.D.3d 1118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 2017

immunity. … As the Court explained, "[w]hether an action receives only qualified immunity, shielding the government except when there is bad faith or the action taken is without a reasonable basis or absolute immunity, where reasonableness

Whelehan v. Yazback

84 A.D.2d 673 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1981

He based this motion on, among other things, absolute immunity, qualified privilege and failure to state a cause of action. … The court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of absolute immunity and granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of absolute immunity; denied defendant’s motion to dismiss

Poveromo v. Town of Cortlandt

127 A.D.3d 835 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 2015

The Town argued, among other things, that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged dangerous conditions as required by the Town Code, that it was entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the road design and … and by failing to install appropriate traffic control devices at the subject intersection, based upon the defense of qualified immunity.

Delgado v. City of New York

144 A.D.3d 46 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 27, 2016

In finding that Witkowich and Washington, who initiated the issuance of the search warrant, were not entitled to qualified immunity, this Court found that they “did little, if anything, to establish the reliability of the … There was, however, no contradiction inasmuch as there is a distinction between granting qualified immunity to officers executing what appears to be a facially valid search warrant, and not granting immunity to officers who

Warren v. Evans

144 A.D.3d 901 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 2016

The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it was entitled to qualified immunity arising out of a highway planning decision. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental entity may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate, or there is no reasonable basis

Rine v. Chase

309 A.D.2d 796 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 2003

Mandated reporters, such as the defendant social worker, are provided with qualified immunity from civil liability for reports of suspected child abuse which are made in “good faith” (Social Services Law § 419). … “The reporting requirements which trigger the qualified immunity provision contained in Social Services Law § 419 are not predicated upon actual or conclusive proof of abuse or maltreatment.

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.

Winney v. County of Saratoga

8 A.D.3d 944 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2004

After some unrelated applications ( 252 AD2d 882 [1998]), defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on qualified governmental immunity. … Under the circumstances, there are questions of fact as to whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, requiring affirmance of Supreme Court’s order.

Oram v. Capone

206 A.D.2d 839 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1994

Memorandum: Defendant County of Onondaga (County) failed to preserve for review its argument that, pursuant to Weiss v Fote ( 7 NY2d 579 , rearg denied 8 NY2d *840 934), the doctrine of qualified municipal immunity applies … Thus, it cannot be said that the doctrine of qualified immunity necessarily applies as a matter of law. We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

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.

Petrus v. Smith

91 A.D.2d 1190 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 1983

Chambers’ gratuitous opinion calling Petrus a liar and a thief is not similarly immune, however. … A qualified privilege requires plaintiff to establish malice (Toker v Poliak, 44 NY2d 211 , 219), a fact question hinging on defendant’s state of mind which is not usually amenable to summary judgment (Rinaldi v Viking Penguin

Reid v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.

189 A.D.2d 954 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 7, 1993

The record evidence clearly establishes that these elements are met in the case at bar. … To qualify as willful or malicious, the proponent must show "an intentional act of unreasonable character performed in disregard of a known or obvious risk so great as to make it highly probable that harm would result” (Gardner

Zain v. Ernest L. Isaacson, DPM, P.C.

2025 NY Slip Op 05332 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 2, 2025

Regarding the EDTPA specifically, it is defendants' burden to establish their entitlement to immunity on each date of service at issue ( see Sapienza v Tromba , — AD3d —, —, 2025 NY Slip Op 04672, *2-3 [2d Dept 2025]). … Neither have defendants established that they were "health care professionals" entitled to EDTPA immunity under former § 3081(4)(e) as "provid[ers of] health care services within the scope of authority permitted by a COVID

Summit at Pomona, Ltd. v. Village of Pomona

72 A.D.3d 797 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 13, 2010

Klingher, and Norman Becker are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal law claims, and governmental immunity for discretionary acts on the state law claims. … While we reject the defendants’ contention that they established that the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal law claims (see Warren v Keane, 196 F3d 330, 332 [1999]), we agree

Hayes v. City of Amsterdam

2 A.D.3d 1139 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 2003

Defendant maintains that it was entitled to summary judgment due to the fact that, inter alia, it is shielded from liability because the acts of its officers were privileged under the qualified immunity doctrine. 2 “In order … to establish this defense, defendant[ ] [was] obligated to submit proof establishing that it was objectively reasonable for [the officers] to believe that [their] conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that