Case law

Norton v. Town of Brookhaven

33 F. Supp. 3d 215 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 30, 2014

Immunity to Suit As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Defendants have not sought qualified immunity and therefore that defense is waived for purposes of this motion. Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. … Even after that determination ... a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity.”

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

401 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 2, 2005

It is clear that Congress did not establish automatic immunity for gun manufacturers or sellers. … Fitzgerald and its progeny, which consider whether absolute or qualified immunity for government officials should be resolved in advance of trial. See Harlow v.

Martinez v. County of Suffolk

999 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2014

42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known.” … For purposes of qualified immunity, “clearly established” means: “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or Second Circuit has recognized the right, and (3) ‘a reasonable defendant [would] have

Henrietta D. v. Giuliani

81 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2000

Thus, the federal claims against State defendant are not improper under the Eleventh Amendment; they fall clearly within the ambit of the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. … Using the framework established by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v.

Forney v. Forney

96 F. Supp. 3d 7 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2015

Defendants also move for a finding that the individual state employee Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and state law immunity. Ds’ Memo of Law at 22-24. … Defendants’ motion on the issue of qualified immunity is also alleged under Section 1983.

DeMarco v. Sadiker

952 F. Supp. 134 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 1996

Paiz’s qualified immunity. C. … in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Hennessy v. City of Long Beach

258 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 25, 2003

Qualified Immunity A government employee is entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 where “1) [her] actions did not violate clearly established law, or 2) it was objectively reasonable for [her] to believe that … A review of the complaint and its accompanying documents reveal that Ko-hut and Camarrato are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Glowczenski v. Taser International, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 2013

And, even if we view that application as excessive, Platt is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity: When a constitutional violation has been shown, the court, on analysis of qualified immunity on an excessive force claim, must determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the

Ojo v. United States

364 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2019

This disagreement entitled defendants to qualified immunity on that claim "based on the very uncertainty of the governing law." Id. at *10. … Indeed, "[i]t would defy logic to analyze qualified immunity ... in terms of unpredictable subsequent events, and courts have repeatedly declined to frame the clearly established inquiry through the '20/20 vision of hindsight

Jimenez

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026

conduct violates clearly established law. … But a body of relevant case law is usually necessary to clearly establish the answer....”

Project Release v. Prevost

463 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 29, 1978

Defendant, in addition, appears to claim that this action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity for executive branch State officials. These arguments lack merit. … Patterson, supra, did enjoy qualified immunity from damage actions, this immunity did not prevent entry of a declaratory judgment that defendants had acted in an unconstitutional manner.

United States v. Hendron

813 F. Supp. 973 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 1, 1993

The fifth and sixth exceptions in § 1605(a) clearly refer to civil suits in that’ they relate to “money damages” sought and arbitration agreements. 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(5)-(6). … Finally §§ 1610 and 1611 qualify the immunity from attachment and execution.

Jeanty v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2024

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under this doctrine. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Johnston v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 21, 1973

To succeed under Section 1983 plaintiff must establish “(1) that he has been deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; (2) that the defendants subjected plaintiff … Whichever rationale is adopted however, the above authorities clearly hold that there is no basis for equating the defense of entrapment to a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Benbow v. Feely

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 25, 2025

Still, the lack of a clearly established rule governing this circumstance is dispositive. the officer who failed to oppose it are qualifiedly immune. Id.; cf. … Thus, Miller reasoned that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the law clearly established both the illegality of the observed conduct and his own duty to intervene

New York v. De Vecchio

468 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2007

Thus, to qualify for removal, the defendant must be a federal officer (or someone acting under a federal officer), and must establish that the suit is “for an[] act [done] under color of such office.” § 1442(a)(1). … pleading requirements for establishing a colorable defense of that nature.”

Guichard v. Town of Brookhaven

26 F. Supp. 3d 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 2014

Defendants’ argument that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to the federal claims is confined to that one sentence of its moving brief. The Court rejects Defendants’ argument. … Second, Defendants offer no explanation as to why the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Plaintiff’s federal claims and the Court declines to guess what Defendants’ argument is.

Kostiuk v. Town of Riverhead

570 F. Supp. 603 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 6, 1983

Sabotka acted within the scope of a qualified immunity. … case, as his conduct in this instance did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v.

Fariello v. Rodriguez

148 F.R.D. 670 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 1993

The Second Circuit has clearly established that “government officials are immune from liability for alleged constitutional violations if the claims do not allege violations of law which were ‘clearly established at the time … These defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken which do not violate a “clearly established” law (See Ea-ston, supra, 947 F.2d at p. 1015).

Fischer v. Karl

84 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 25, 1949

. § 109 , it was impossible in patent suits to sue any defendant in a district of which he was not an inhabitant or in which he had either committed acts of infringement or maintained a regular and established place of business … Ct. 780 , 86 L.Ed. 1026 , it was held that the section referred to was not qualified by exceptions to the general venue provisions which would have made the Deckers suable in this district. 28 U.S.C.A. § 113 .