Case law

Marino v. City University of New York

18 F. Supp. 3d 320 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 9, 2014

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not explicitly bar suits against a state by its own citizens, it is well established that a non-consenting state is immune from suits brought by its own citizens in federal court. … (“[Ajfter Garrett , New York’s continued acceptance of federal funds necessarily constituted a valid waiver of sovereign immunity because New York could no longer rely on a belief that Title II clearly constituted a valid

Lester v. Brezenoff

548 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1982

Monell merely decided that there could be no absolute immunity afforded local governmental entities; the Court expressly declined to pass on the question of whether a good faith immunity would be recognized. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Nassau & Suffolk Cnty. Taxi Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. State

336 F. Supp. 3d 50 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2018

The Court will briefly address Defendants' arguments with respect to Article IV and qualified immunity before focusing the balance of its attention on the equal protection argument. 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants maintain that Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Egan are protected by qualified immunity, and all claims against them require dismissal for that reason. See Defs.' Mem. at 18-20.

Hagemann v. Molinari

14 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 1998

A government employer is entitled to qualified immunity for violations of the First Amendment if the employer did not act in violation of a “clearly established” right. See Hickey-McAllister, 978 F.Supp. at 136 . … “For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is ‘clearly established’ if it is defined with reasonable clarity; if the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed its existence; or if a reasonable

Manzi v. DiCarlo

982 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 1997

Moreover, the decisions involved would not otherwise qualify as legislative acts entitled to immunity.’ … In this case, the discovery and trial needs of plaintiff in enforcing her rights under federal law clearly outweigh the State Defendants’ need for confidentiality.

Vlahadamis v. Kiernan

837 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2011

Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense.

Farmland Dairies v. Commissioner of the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets

650 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 8, 1987

If any time hearings were held with regard to state licensing procedures the state officials were granted absolute immunity, the rule of qualified immunity would be eaten up by the exception. 8 Defendants’ motion for summary … The Commissioner does not raise qualified immunity as a basis for his summary judgment motion.

Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District

672 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 21, 1987

Immunization hinders life (God) and thus is contrary to *93 God. To deviate (immunize) from this natural order would be to sin. … establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 4.

Anderson v. City of New York

817 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Officers Petronella and Larkin should be immune from a claim of false arrest, even absent probable cause, under the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Defs.’ … The test for qualified immunity is “more favorable to officers than the one for probable cause; ‘arguable probable cause’ will suffice to confer qualified immunity” for an arrest. Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743 .

Killarney v. Laperla

559 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 1983

In that case, the Court held that government officials are immune from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct insofar as their conduct was objectively reasonable as measured by reference to clearly established law … Prior to Harlow , the established standard for qualified or “good faith” immunity was two-pronged, bifurcating the concept of good faith on the part of the officers into an objective and subjective component.

Selzer v. Berkowitz

459 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 27, 1978

Such a class, defendants claim, is not clearly enough defined for purposes of Section 1985(3) coverage. … While Griffin quite clearly established that Section 1985(3) extends to purely private conspiracies, the Court’s requirement, as noted above, of a racial or otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus as part

Hoyos v. City of New York

999 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 11, 2013

Because the right to be free from false arrest is clearly established, the issue of qualified immunity turns on whether it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that probable cause existed. … immunity.

Jones v. Bay Shore Union Free School District

170 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 16, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on the issue of qualified immunity. Y.

Sheppard v. Beerman

190 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 7, 2002

— the employer’s actual motive for firing the employee — with the objective focus of the qualified immunity doctrine. … ’s actual (subjective) motive is not irrelevant in a qualified immunity inquiry.

Daytree at Cortland Square, Inc. v. Walsh

332 F. Supp. 3d 610 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " White v. … The Court concludes that the qualified immunity issue cannot be decided at the motion to dismiss stage given the allegations in the complaint.

Rini v. Zwirn

886 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 5, 1995

See Tower, 467 U.S. at 920-23, 104 S.Ct. at 2824-26 (only congress may establish immunities to § 1983 liability not found at common law). … In addition, the Massey court was not presented with the question of whether the individuals were entitled to even qualified immunity.

Walston v. City of N.Y.

289 F. Supp. 3d 398 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 10, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise a defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs' 1983 claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suit for acts undertaken in their official capacity if "(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc.

13 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 15, 1998

In order to establish immunity from suit, the individual federal defendants must demonstrate either that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not “clearly established” at the time of the investigation or … that it was “ob-jeetively reasonable” for defendants to believe their acts did not violate the clearly established rights.

Soundview Associates v. Town of Riverhead

893 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2012

With respect to plaintiffs First Amendment claim, defendants do not move for summary judgment on this claim, nor does defendants’ motion clearly address the First Amendment claim in the context of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds with respect plaintiffs claims. (Defs.’ Br. at 16-18.)

Harris v. VAO Intourist, Moscow

481 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 1979

Under the terms of the Immunities Act, each of the defendants qualifies for immunity as “an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” … The court noted that the defendants were clearly within the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and had been properly served.