Case law

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.”

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.

Jones v. Sheriff of Suffolk County

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 27, 2020

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985), it still afforded that body qualified immunity. … But regardless of whether the Council should be cloaked in absolute or qualified immunity, the Court is unable to identify any clearly established right that the Council violated in ruling as it did. See Harlow v.

Perkowski v. The Town of Brookhaven

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2021

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … protected by qualified immunity.

Weintraub v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

489 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 29, 2007

The District moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied. … While the District’s interlocutory appeal of the qualified immunity issue was pending, the Supreme Court issued its Garcetti opinion, and the Tenth Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties to address the impact

Doyley v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 5, 2024

“A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Given these dictates, it is of course incumbent on a court that would deny qualified immunity to state the clearly established legal principle that a reasonable jury could — on the facts

Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists

440 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 26, 2006

Defendant argues that its hiring decisions regarding plaintiff are immune under the “ministerial exception” to Title VII. … For disparate treatment claims under Title VII, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing that he or she (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position in question, and (3)

United States v. Oddo

202 F. Supp. 899 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 6, 1962

It is clearly established that this defendant deliberately concealed his criminal record and thereby committed a fraud upon the Government which supports the revocation of citizenship. United States v. … A like contention was clearly rejected in United States v. Montalbano (United States v.

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

819 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 24, 2011

The plaintiff has the burden of first establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 . … See Powell, 580 F.2d at 1155. *128 Here, plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to meet the minimal showing that she was qualified for her position.

Bakalis v. Crossland Savings Bank

781 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 17, 1991

The case clearly holds that federal agencies are not “persons” entitled to remove. It does not, however, clearly state that only natural persons are qualified to do so. … It deals only with the strength of the immunity defense which must be shown to prevent remand after removal.

United States v. Rosario

237 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 8, 2002

Palmer clearly and unambiguously promised Rosario transactional immunity in return for his telling the truth. Mr. Hochbaum, like Mr. Wel-some, simply assumed from Ms. … As is well established, the grand jury is entitled to every person’s evidence, see, e.g., United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 93 *252 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973); Kastigar v.

Campbell v. Brentwood Union Free School District

904 F. Supp. 2d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 13, 2012

In the event that the Section 1983 claims are not dismissed, the individual School Defendants seek dismissal of these claims on the ground of qualified immunity. … The court’s holding that Plaintiff states no Constitutional violation makes it unnecessary to consider either the individual School Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, or the issue of liability under Monell.

Bennett v. County of Suffolk

30 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 24, 1998

. § 1983 based on the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration … This determination is clearly factually loaded. In addition, at this time, the Court cannot rule that the questions on the MMPI-2 and CPI at issue are per se unconstitutional as a matter of law.

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

Rene v. Mustafa

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry: first, the Court examines whether the official’s conduct violated a clearly established … Supp. 2d 353, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“[W]here the law is clearly settled, summary judgment may be granted on qualified immunity grounds if the

Coffey v. United States

939 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 1996

The applicability of FECA to United States Postal Service employees is clearly set forth in 39 U.S.C. § 1005 (e). … Also absent from the present complaint are facts suggesting that tolling doctrines would apply to permit a deviation from the established procedures.

Long v. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF DEFENSE

616 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 19, 1985

subject matter jurisdiction, however, the statute of limitations clearly bars plaintiffs claims. … Orr, supra, is clearly misplaced. Several other recent decisions confirm the applicability of § 2401(a). In Geyen v.

Turner v. White

443 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 7, 2005

immunity; and (4) as a matter of law, plaintiff had failed to establish a claim of a constitutional violation. … Thus, in order to establish his claim for damages under Section 1983, plaintiff must establish that defendants’ actions were a proximate cause of plaintiffs alleged injuries.

Fariello v. Campbell

860 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 1994

, and (2) clearly had jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 439 and 454. … It is well-established that Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants, Yosef v.

Toussie v. County of Suffolk

806 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 2, 2011

The individual Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, nonetheless, on the basis of qualified immunity. 3. … Qualified Immunity “Under qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established