Case law

Davis v. Lynbrook Police Department

224 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 17, 2002

Clearly, the municipality has received notice of the action and has responded. … In addition, although the Lynbrook Defendants move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, this defense is unavailable in official capacity suits. See Rodriguez v.

McKenna v. Nassau County

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 6, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Further, “[b]ecause a ‘reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct,’ qualified immunity ‘ordinarily should fail’ in cases where the law was clearly established.’” Clark v.

Schmelzer Ex Rel. Schmelzer v. New York

363 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 1, 2003

There is no qualifying language such as substantial compliance. The statute says “all children with disabilities” are entitled to certain rights. … Defendants have clearly violated the statutory regulation and a declaratory injunction is appropriate. Without such a declaration, the rights and requirements of the parties will be unclear.

Sherman v. County of Suffolk

71 F. Supp. 3d 332 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 29, 2014

qualified for the job in question. … The Court need not address any entitlement by the Individual Defendants’ to qualified immunity.

Cassidy v. Scoppetta

365 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 4, 2005

“In a § 1983 action, it is well-settled that qualified immunity shields a defendant from personal liability for damages so long as his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Because none of Plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional rights were violated, and, a fortiori, no “clearly established” rights were violated, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability in

Maco v. Baldwin Union Free School District

249 F. Supp. 3d 674 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 13, 2017

Finally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that she suffered -any concrete harm- as a result of Defendants’ contacting CPS. … Since the Court’ is granting summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, it need not consider Defendants' arguments concerning qualified immunity.

Wills v. Schneiderman

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2025

Schneiderman moves to dismiss the amended complaint based on absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and Wills’ failure to state a claim. … Actions “normally performed by a detective or police officer,” on the other hand, are only entitled to qualified immunity. Id. (quotation omitted).

Zeller v. United States

467 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 21, 1979

Alternatively, the government asserts that Kampel is at least entitled to qualified immunity based upon his good faith, reasonable belief that he was properly acting within the scope of his official duties. … Matteo’s doctrine of absolute immunity is no longer valid in light of more recent decisions holding that officers of the executive branch of government are entitled only to a qualified immunity based upon reasonable grounds

Vaizburd v. United States

90 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 3, 2000

. § 2401 et seq., waives the sovereign immunity of the United States, allowing it to be sued for its torts, immunity is not waived when one of the exceptions to the FTCA is applicable. … A two-prong test has been established by the Supreme Court as a guide to determining which governmental functions are discretionary and which are not.

Dasrath v. Stony Brook University Medical Center

965 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 9, 2013

“[A]n individual is properly subject to liability for discrimination [under section 296(1) ] when that individual qualifies as an ‘employer.’ ” Townsend v. … Although discovery may establish that Strianse was only executing the decision of her supervisors in the Medical Center and therefore does not qualify as an employer under section 296(1), plaintiffs allegations are sufficient

Novak v. Harris

504 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 28, 1980

Sovereign Immunity The Secretary next contends that an award of retroactive payment violates the sovereign immunity of the United States. … It is established that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. 8 United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 , 96 S.Ct. 948 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1975).

Wright v. United States

559 F. Supp. 1139 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 1983

Clearly, the actual adoption of the BRL program in August 1973 was unnecessary to support the jury’s conclusion that an illicit agreement had been reached in February of 1973. See United States v. … The statements ascribed to Harrington, however, even if they actually refer to petitioner, are so vague as to border on irrelevancy, and clearly do not constitute a viable means of corroborating Harrington’s version of her

Hamad v. Nassau County Medical Center

191 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2000

Second Prong-Qualified for Employment Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts suggesting he was qualified for employment. … However, although not specifically ruled on by the Second Circuit, other Circuit Courts have held that HCQIA does not establish immunity from suit. See, e.g., Manion v.

Lewis v. Grinker

111 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 19, 2000

However, Section 401(b)(1)(C) also pro *153 vides a limited exception from the general provisions of the statute for public health assistance other than Medicaid assistance for “immunizations with respect to immun-izable … Instead, they seek to assert their clearly established right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hampton v.

Catania v. Herbst

916 F. Supp. 2d 266 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 4, 2013

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested a conference with this Court to establish a briefing schedule on the issue, as well as to conduct discovery related to the scope-of-employment question. … This substitution “immunizes the governmental employee” and also allows the substituted defendant, the United States, to take advantage of numerous limitations on tort actions based on sovereign immunity that are not available

Braithwaite v. Tropea

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 2, 2023

Third, Conner, as a court-reporter, is likely entitled to qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, court reporters are shielded from suit for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Djordjevic v. Postmaster General, United States Postal Service

957 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 26, 1997

Specifically, this Court explained that the exemption to the waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (b), which retains sovereign immunity with respect to claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or … Specifically, DMM § S010.2.12(a)(3) provides that indemnity is paid for “[l]oss or damage to nonnegotiable documents that cannot be reconstructed, providing the sender establishes the value of the documents.”

Ireland v. Suffolk County of New York

242 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 2003

However, the Chief of Engineers also qualified the recommended actions in two ways. … Under traditional principles of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit except to the extent the government has waived its immunity.

Bland v. New York

263 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 7, 2003

Plaintiff is exempted from the Civil Service rules, as well as the Career Service Rules established by OCA. … Moreover, to establish liability on the theory that a supervisor exploited the agency relationship in committing the harassment, a plaintiff “must allege facts which establish a nexus between the supervisory authority” and

Anderson v. Aparicio

25 F. Supp. 3d 303 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 12, 2014

were “objectively reasonable” and thus entitled to qualified immunity requires little comment. … Therefore, Aparicio cannot seek the protection of qualified immunity. Amount of Punitive Award Aparicio also challenges the amount of the punitive award, claiming that the $75,000 award is excessive.