Case law

Gala v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2021

“[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … Instead, “[a] defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’” McEvoy v.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

814 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2011

Having carefully considered the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Nudo is entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim because, although there was a clearly established right to be free … Therefore, qualified immunity at this juncture is clearly unwarranted.

Sheppard v. Beerman

911 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 1995

In the Second Circuit, law is normally “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when there is a United States Supreme Court or circuit court ruling on point. See Richardson v. … ’s dismissal established the violation of a “clearly established” right.

Siddique v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

Indeed, Inoa’s own description of why he is entitled to qualified immunity touches upon several areas in dispute: [I]t was not clearly established that Officer … That seems unlikely because the language “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” in the context of failure to intervene borrows from the qualified immunity doctrine, see Riccitui, 124 F.3d at 129, and

Livant v. Clifton

334 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a three step analysis. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999). … Then, [the Court] consider[s] if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Finally, if plaintiff had a clearly established, constitutionally protected right that was violated ...

Ruffins v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

701 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

“clearly established federal law” for the purposes of qualified immunity. … At the time the Second Circuit had Earley before it for consideration, the relevant law may have been clearly established for the purposes of AEDPA and not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Talley v. Brentwood Union Free School District

728 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity in General “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

326 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2018

certainly circumstances where an intoxicated person's statement that he or she does not need medical treatment should not be honored because it is inconsistent with other objective facts indicating that hospitalization is clearly … Plaintiff introduced, through deposition testimony, that Rangers Sokol and Paterson had never received any training from Smithtown on how to identify drugs; how drugs affect people; how to deal with individuals who are clearly

Pendleton v. Goord

849 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Defendants argue that the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley did not clearly establish, for the purposes of qualified immunity, that the administrative imposition of a period of PRS violated a constitutional right.

Braithwaite v. Tropea

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 27, 2023

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider “whether the facts shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was clearly established … The United State Supreme Court has long extended qualified immunity to court reporters, such as Conner, where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department

897 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2012

that preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. 1. … 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

Shain v. Ellison

53 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1999

so as to preclude the Sheriff who established the county jail policy from invoking the defense of qualified immunity, Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 . … Qualified Immunity Defendants seek to invoke the defense of qualified immunity on behalf of the Nassau County Sheriff.

Taylor v. Rogich

45 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2014

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.... … The Court deter *227 mined that “Brosseau’s actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force [and that qualified immunity applied because] cases by no means clearly established] that Brosseau’s conduct

Akinnagbe v. City of New York

128 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available if an officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.” … is no clearly established right being violated.

Curro v. Watson

884 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 1995

If the law at the time of the alleged violation was clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity generally will fail, since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his or her conduct. … Indeed, a violation of clearly established law will defeat qualified immunity. See Davis, 468 U.S. at 197 , 104 5. Ct. at 3020-21.

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Hansen v. Town of Smithtown

342 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 24, 2018

City of New York , 45 F.3d 653 , 663 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that under qualified immunity, "a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official … The Supreme Court has explained that "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established

Milfort v. Prevete

3 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 14, 2014

Qualified immunity applies when a government actor’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiffs … However, because sufficient material facts have been established, the Court will recount the factors compelling its conclusion that Prevete was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the