Case law

McSweeney v. Bayport Bluepoint Central School District

864 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2012

New-burgh Enlarged School District, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for a teacher who was alleged to have grabbed a student by the throat, lifted him off the ground by his neck … Although, clearly, CC’s behavior was less than optimal, it must be remembered that he was a nine year-old child at the time the incidents took place.

Zambrano-Lamhaouhi v. New York City Board of Education

866 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 21, 2011

Furthermore, Kwait is not entitled to qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claim. … immunity.

Richards v. Napolitano

642 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2009

As explained above, however, I conclude that the language of § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) clearly and unambiguously indicates that Congress intended for surviving spouses like plaintiff to be eligible to qualify as “immediate relatives … She has therefore established actual success on the merits. In addition, defendants do not dispute that absent injunctive relief, plaintiff faces mandatory deportation, which qualifies as “irreparable injury.”

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

198 F.R.D. 374 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2001

Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires a movant to satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23(a)- — numerosity, commonality, typicality, and fair and adequate protection of the class by the repre *377 sentative plaintiffs — and to qualify … The requested injunction is clearly not window dressing.” Id. at 89. In Gelb v.

Pierre v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 30, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Therefore, the search for the vehicle’s title is protected by qualified immunity, and I grant summary judgment for defendants on this claim. III.

United States v. Barlow

732 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2010

Under the Duren test, a criminal defendant can establish a prima facie case that his fair cross-section rights were violated by showing “(1) a group qualifying as ‘distinctive’ (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented … It had held that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in finding that Kent County, Michigan’s procedures for assigning prospective jurors to different courthouses were permissible

Burchette v. Dumpson

387 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 1974

On or about January 8, 1974, the plaintiff and her daughter, Marie Browne, were informed orally by a representative of the New York City Department of Social Services that the plaintiff no longer qualified for full-time nursing … The lack of substantiality in a federal question may appear either because it is obviously without merit or because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject.

Estate of Ritzer Ex Rel. Ritzer v. National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions Insurance Trust Fund Hospital

822 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 24, 1993

There, the summary plan description misstated the time in which a plan participant could elect continuing health benefit coverage after a “qualifying event” (such as the termination of his employment). … To require the claimant’s estate to prove that the now deceased claimant actually read and relied on a faulty summary plan description is virtually to immunize the ERISA plan from liability.

Pina

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 17, 2025

Apr. 22, 2019) (“[s]uch action was clearly taken in Judge Sharpe’s capacity as a federal district judge, acting in his judicial capacity in ordering the transfer.”); Miller v. … Apr. 7, 2025) (“[e]ven the transfer of the case by then-District Judge Childs qualifies as a judicial action) (citing Bobrowsky v. Yonkers Courthouse, 777 F.

Husowitz v. Runyon

942 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 15, 1996

Husowitz must establish that (1) he is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Act, (2) he is otherwise qualified for the position in question, (3) he was excluded from the position solely on the basis of … To establish that his suspension was “solely by reason” of his disability, Mr.

Pittman v. Mangano

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 2025

And, to the extent that he challenges Justice Mangano’s actions in presiding over the criminal case against him and sentencing a criminal defendant appearing before him, these actions are clearly within the judge’s judicial … Likewise, “[i]t is well established that a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.”

Posa, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.

642 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 1986

New York clearly gives the protection of a qualified privilege to statements made by a defendant to a third party on matters relating to their mutual business interests. See e.g., Commonwealth Motor Parts Ltd. v. … These are all elements which it is plaintiffs’ burden to establish. See Guard-Life Corp. v. S.

United States v. Numisgroup Intern. Corp.

170 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 26, 2001

This decision addresses the interesting issue of whether the existence of objective *342 and subjective grading factors immunizes a seller of coins from a criminal charge of fraudulently misrepresenting the grade and value … [T]o deny the possibility of corporate responsibility for the acts of minor employees is to immunize the offender who really benefits, and open wide the door for evasion”).

Crespo v. Carvajal

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 30, 2020

Ct. 1843 (2017), and (ii) the defense of qualified immunity jurisdictionally bars the medical care Bivens claims. (R&R at 17, 19–20, 33–36.) … Plaintiffs contend Magistrate Judge Kuo was wrong to address the question of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs cite Chamberlain v.

Chais

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 30, 2026

To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must show, among other things, that she “is a qualified individual with a disability[.]” See Costin v. … Nevertheless, the Amended Complaint fails to establish causation.

Harris v. Suffolk County Corr. Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 12, 2023

LEGAL STANDARDS The Second Circuit has established a two-step procedure wherein the district court first considers whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and then considers … Any amended complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and shall bear the same docket number as this Order, 23-CV-6839(GRB)(LGD).

The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners, and Merchants Inc. v. Suffolk County

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 13, 2024

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … For the law to be clearly established, “the law must be so clearly established with respect to the ‘particular conduct’ and the ‘specific context’ at issue that ‘every reasonable official

Klishewich v. Mediterranean Agencies, Inc.

42 F.R.D. 624 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 1966

(Mediterranean) 1 pieced out by the qualified admission in the answer of the Mediterranean 2 and the general tenor of the affidavits and exhibits submitted by the opposing parties on the motion sub jud. establish the relationship … All that is here established by plaintiff, and that not too clearly, is that Peraco on January 30, 1963, more than three years before the purported service upon it in Andreson’s behalf of the process here challenged, acted

Davis v. Ennis

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2023

LEGAL STANDARDS The Second Circuit has established a two-step procedure wherein the district court first considers whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and then considers the merits of the complaint … It is well-established that New York State has not waived its sovereign immunity from Section 1983 claims. Mamot v. Bd. of Regents, 367 Fed. App’x 191, 192 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order).

Fisher v. Valley Stream Central High School District

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2025

In general, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. at 31. … In other words, I need not reach the prong of the qualified immunity analysis that requires a determination as to whether any state claim for violation of a constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of