Case law

Doyle v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2025

The Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity claims must also be rejected. … It is unnecessary for the Court to reach this legal question because, even if qualified immunity is potentially available, as a factual matter, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity based on

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.

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.

In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation

611 F. Supp. 1223 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 1985

His credentials clearly suffice to qualify him as an expert pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Dr. Epstein submitted a general or master affidavit on the scientific literature on causation. … He is clearly a highly qualified expert in the field, his testimony meets the helpfulness requirement, and his analytical technique — inference from epidemiological data and medical records — is acceptable.

Ekeland v. Binns

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 14, 2023

dismissed as defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “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

Benny v. The City of Long Beach

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 27, 2022

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider “whether [the] right is clearly established”— i.e., “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer … Further, because qualified immunity protects officers who reasonably believe their conduct to be lawful, the existence of “arguable probable cause” establishes a qualified immunity

Sheppard v. Leuze

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 29, 2024

and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … For the law to be clearly established, “the law must be so clearly established with respect to the ‘particular conduct’ and the ‘specific context’ at issue that ‘every reasonable official would

Sano v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2025

“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 … In the false arrest context, “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity against a suit for false arrest if he can establish that he had ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest the plaintiff.” Garcia v.

Buckley v. New York

959 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 7, 2013

In order to establish a prima facie Title VII claim, the Plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified for her position and satisfactorily performed [his] duties; (3) [he] suffered … immunity”); Brewer v.

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

798 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 19, 2011

McDermott and Noble are therefore also not entitled to a grant of summary judgment based on their qualified immunity from suit. … violate a clearly established right.

Quintin v. County Of Nassau

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability resulting from the performance of their discretionary … 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

Alexiadis v. New York College of Health Professions

891 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2012

In order to establish a prima facie case under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish the following: (1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public … Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection substantially limits immune function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 . .

Kielczynski v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

128 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2001

Accordingly, to establish the jurisdiction of the district court in this case, KielezynsM must establish that the government has waived its immunity to suit court with respect to the claims asserted here. … Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), “violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” see Siegert v.

United States v. New York

690 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 13, 1988

facility are not being deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured to them by the Constitution of the United States: *1207 1. … PLANS In order to establish compliance with this Consent Decree, the State shall file with the Court no later than _ its plans(s) for implementing this Consent Decree.

State of NY v. United States

620 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 8, 1985

Second, defendants argue that § 313(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1323 , only waives their sovereign immunity from liability under state laws which contain objective and administrative pre-established water pollution control … Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) ("It has long been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, `is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms

Nasser v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

388 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 1975

Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the actual day-to-day management and operation of the water district is in the hands of a full-time, well-qualified manager and a full-time superintendent, each of whom is paid more … Here, the evidence clearly established that the water district is run by a full-time, well-qualified manager and a superintendent, each of whom is paid over $17,000 a year (Tr. 49-50).

Sippit Cups, Inc. v. Michael's Creations, Inc.

180 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 1960

He clearly held such a case to be penal in character and denied discovery to the plaintiff for that reason. … The first is clearly distinguishable on the facts, and the headnote in the second is deemed to be erroneous.

Wisdom v. Undercover Police Officer C0127

879 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 26, 2012

While this right is qualified, see Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2004), the defendants have not explained why it should not hold in this case. … Probable cause is also central to the defendants’ defense of qualified immunity. See Caceres v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 631 F.3d 620, 622 (2d Cir.2011). .

Hughes v. Ester C. Co.

320 F.R.D. 337 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 21, 2017

However, that theory *343 of liability—ie., the theory that “The Better Vitamin C,” standing alone, is misleading— is clearly inadequate as a matter of law, because “a general claim of superiority over comparable products … Br. at 17), the pendency of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not prevent Plaintiffs from pursuing class certification based on their “immune support” theory of liability.

Leckie v. Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 11, 2021

Defendants also argue that Ling and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity because neither of them violated a clearly established right, nor were they on notice to any risk of harm due to Leckie’s sexual orientation. … An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if 1) his or her actions did not violate clearly established law, or 2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that his or her actions did not violate such law