Case law

Graham v. City of New York

128 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 10, 2015

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit brought pursuant to Section 1983 if either “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … July 25, 2007) (noting that "the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident in question"). .

Pace v. Town of Southampton

678 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 13, 2010

In the alternative, the Defendants argue that Officer Vecchio is shielded from liability based upon qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

739 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 23, 2010

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them … established” on July 25, 2005, such as to abrogate Poulos's qualified immunity on that ground. 48 .

Razzano v. County of Nassau

599 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 14, 2009

A right is clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, when “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...” … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[].”

Sclafani v. Spitzer

734 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2010

Qualified Prosecutors and police officers “performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Plaintiffs have failed to establish a “plus” factor.

Alla v. Verkay

979 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 30, 2013

Qualified Immunity Verkay argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity for his use of excessive force. He and Dorson both argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for the second arrest. … Therefore, the Court will address the qualified immunity issue in that context. 1. Excessive Force (Verkay) Entitlement to qualified immunity presents a question of law. See Stephenson v.

Bailey v. City of New York

79 F. Supp. 3d 424 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 15, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects federal and state officials from money damages and “unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings.” Coollick v. … ’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Deadwiley v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

97 F. Supp. 3d 110 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

Moreover, Plaintiff was the only “qualified” applicant who was not placed on any “certified list.” Id. … “Once challenged, the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the party asserting that it exists.

Kane v. Yung Won Han

550 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 1982

Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), established that in spite of the sweeping “every person” language in § 1983 judges retained their traditional common-law immunity. … Both absolute and qualified immunity are predicated on the need for independent decision making.

Equus Associates Ltd. v. Town of Southampton

975 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 1997

Qualified immunity The defendants further move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Berg v. Glen Cove City School District

853 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1994

Inoculations, in our opinion, are clearly a defilement and in direct violation of the Laws of God. Complaint ¶ 17. … Based on the record presented thus far, this Court finds that plaintiffs have establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that their opposition to the required immunizations is based on beliefs which qualify

Anderson v. United States

107 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2000

A claim of qualified immunity in a Bivens action is considered under the same standards as a qualified immunity defense in a Section 1983 case. Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 ; Jones v. New York State Div. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Whitson v. Gilberg

792 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified Immunity In addition to arguing that probable cause bars Plaintiffs claim, Defendant argues that the claim is barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity bars an action against a government official where the conduct alleged “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Collazo v. County of Suffolk

163 F. Supp. 3d 27 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 17, 2016

plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.” … Thus, the Court need only determine the issue of qualified immunity.

Hepburn v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff’s right to be free from arrest in the specific circumstances of this … Qualified Immunity In the context of qualified immunity, “[a] police officer cannot be held liable in damages for failure to intercede unless such failure permitted

Smalls v. City of New York

181 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 2, 2016

Defendant Collins and Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers “from personal liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly estab *189 lished statutory or constitutional … Officers who knowingly lie are not protected by qualified immunity.

Walker v. Mahoney

915 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 9, 1996

immunity insofar as their conduct did not violate any clearly-established federal constitutional rights of which a reasonable state official would have known. … The plaintiff further asserts that the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to the defendants because the procedural due process rights in question were clearly established at the time of the conduct alleged, and

Cincotta v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.

313 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 14, 2018

Almonte , 478 F.3d at 106 ("Immunity, either absolute or qualified, is a personal defense that is available only when officials are sued in their individual capacities; the immunities officials enjoy when sued personally … However, "[t]he burden of establishing is pretext is higher than that required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination." Geras v. Hempstead Union Free Sch.

Davis v. Town of Hempstead

296 F. Supp. 2d 376 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 12, 2003

Qualified Immunity In any .event, all the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … To avail themselves of a qualified immunity defense, defendants must show that (a) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not

Johnson v. United States

680 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 28, 1987

must still be dismissed because they are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for discretionary actions within the scope of duty unless the official knew or should have known his actions clearly violated constitutional rights. Harlow v.