Case law

Fraser v. New York

769 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 7, 1991

The burden rests on the moving party to clearly establish the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, Adickes v. S.H. … To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff must present evidence that: 1) he is in a protected racial group; 2) he was qualified for the job; 3) he was discharged; and 4) the discharge occurred

Smith v. Famiano

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2023

Thus, Plaintiff’s false search claim as to Defendants’ 2015 search warrant survives the motion for summary judgment and Defendants have failed to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity for this claim at … Even if probable cause is lacking in a given case, an officer “will still be entitled to qualified immunity . . . if he can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest.” Zalaski v.

Melville v. Apfel

5 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 4, 1998

The regulations do not provide that the past work must have been salaried in order to qualify as relevant. … Here, the types of duties performed by Melville at her DSS jobs clearly involved the kind of work that is usually done for pay or profit, and therefore qualify as “gainful.”

Hoffman v. Town of Southampton

893 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2012

In fact, the Court subsequently granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of the above-referenced opinion and granted summary judgment on the malicious abuse of process claim on qualified immunity grounds. … Defendant Lombardo also moves to dismiss on the ground of absolute immunity and all the individual defendants move to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity.

Allen v. County of Nassau

90 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 10, 2015

Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set forth above, the Court concludes that plaintiff's claim is without merit, and thus, the Court need not address whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Russo v. Kirby

335 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 1971

In this civil rights action to establish the right of striking New York Telephone Company employees to receive various forms of public welfare assistance, a separate issue was presented concerning the court’s power to direct … Refusal of food stamps on the basis of implications drawn from the 1971 amendments to the New York Social Services Law, Section 131(4), was therefore clearly improper.

Hansen v. The Town of Smithtown

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2022

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 … still be granted on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Williams v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 24, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To establish qualified immunity, the City Defendants need only demonstrate that Officer Henleywarren had “arguable probable cause” to arrest the plaintiff. Figueroa v.

Cipley v. County of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · May 7, 2025

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for ‘“his discretionary actions if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … interrogatories addressing their entitlement to qualified immunity.”

Jeter v. New York City Department of Education

549 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2008

Jeter’s claims under Sections 1985 and 1986 are barred by intracorporate immunity and dismissed. … DeCin-tio and Kirkland predate Kosakow by more than ten years, and Kosakow clearly distinguished both. Kosakow, 274 F.3d at 730 .

Elmasri v. England

111 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2000

Thus, a private individual claiming immunity who is charged with conspiring with a state actor must establish his own basis for invoking an immunity defense. See Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 330 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1108 . D. … Favaro and Donna England Are Barred By Witness Immunity In addition to the grounds discussed above, both Dr. Favaro and Donna England' are entitled to absolute witness immunity.

Haggerty Ex Rel. Haggerty v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals

79 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 4, 2000

On March 4, 1997, the special master denied the petition, finding that the timing of Mary’s injury did not qualify her for the statutory presumption of causation. Haggerty v. … Merck & Co., 742 F.Supp. at 246 (“The [Vaccine Act] clearly shows that Congress intended state tort remedies to remain in effect despite extensive federal regulations.

Belyea v. The City of Glen Cove

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Tenke is not entitled to qualified immunity. As discussed both above and further below, the right to be free from employment discrimination and retaliation “were all clearly established at the time Tenke acted.”

Misciagno v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

786 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 13, 1992

Based on this evidence, an onset date of December 1982 was established. On October 7, 1991, plaintiff was advised that this entitled him to approximately $23,000 in retroactive benefits. … If courts allow reliance on the old rule of law to qualify as “misconduct,” they both depart from the accepted meaning of the word and ignore Beam.

Colon Ex Rel. Stolyar v. Abbott Laboratories

397 F. Supp. 2d 405 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 15, 2005

Newman is a qualified expert, his speculative opinions do not meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert and therefore must be excluded. … Newman were qualified to provide opinions as to specific causation, a significant analytical gap remains between the possibility that infant formula may cause T1D and Dr.

Neustein v. Orbach

732 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 1990

Wishengrad, 745 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir.1984) (social services prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity). … Clearly, BSPCC is entitled to absolute immunity with regard to its filing of the neglect petition against Plaintiff.

Rosenfeld v. Lenich

370 F. Supp. 3d 335 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 1, 2019

immunity. 2. … Immunity Defendants contend that City Defendants are entitled to immunity under New York State law in connection with Plaintiff's negligent retention and supervision and negligence claims because all of the alleged actions

Morvillo v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, like the defendant deputies here, from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Qualified immunity is available where “(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 such law.”

Baeringer v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Court denies Bowman’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which “shields federal and state officials from money damages unless the plaintiff pleads facts showing … “[E]ven if the right was clearly established,” a court can still find a suit blocked by qualified immunity where “it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful.”

Vassiliou v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 2021

Because Defendants have invoked qualified immunity, the critical question is whether they should reasonably have known that their conduct in the van violated “clearly established … whether any constitutional violation was clearly established.”