Case law

Heidorf v. Town of Northumberland

985 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 17, 1997

Qualified immunity also will protect a defendant, even where the right was clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. See Benitez v. … Issues of fact exist, however, as to whether defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pollara v. Seymour

150 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 2001

statute, the conduct in this case violated no clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is rejected. 9 V.

Elmendorf v. Howell

962 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 5, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defendants cross-move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Malatesta v. New York State Division of State Police

120 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 7, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … Accordingly, the remaining defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for this conduct. 2.

Zappala v. Albicelli

980 F. Supp. 635 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 15, 1997

clearly established that their conduct was violative of a constitutional right, and in any event their conduct was objectively reasonable given the circumstances present. … Qualified immunity shields government actors from liability for performing discretionary functions where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would

Tatta v. Wright

616 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 10, 2007

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified Immunity Dr. Wright also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rourke v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

915 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 27, 1995

Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate … On that basis alone, the court denies the defendants motion for dismissal of certain claims on the basis of qualified immunity.

Howington v. Eiffe

180 F. Supp. 3d 199 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that, even if Plaintiff has evidence of excessive force, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Kenney v. Clay

172 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 23, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields police officers, like other public officials, from the specter of civil liability “when their ‘con *638 duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ request for qualified immunity is denied. B.

Kampfer v. Vonderheide

216 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 23, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendant asserts that he is immune from liability under plaintiffs claim that he violated Kampfer’s constitutional right of access to the courts due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Aguirre-Molina v. New York State Division of Alcoholism & Alcohol Abuse

675 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 12, 1987

Assuming that a prima facie case has been established, the Division has clearly articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, thus rebutting any presumption of discrimination. … Determining whether an agency established by the state should be afforded the state’s eleventh amendment immunity, however, is not always an easy task.

Hameed v. Coughlin

37 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 2, 1999

immunity is not clearly erroneous. … Qualified immunity bars an action for damages based on a constitutional right that is not “clearly established.” See Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Wright v. Wilburn

194 F.R.D. 54 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2000

qualified immunity was Defendant’s sole burden of proof in this case. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Naccarato v. Scarselli

124 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Koziol v. Hanna

107 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 1, 2000

Qualified Immunity — Edward A Hanna Qualified immunity insulates a governmental official performing discretionary functions from liability so long as his “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants argue that Hanna should be protected by qualified immunity since it was not clearly established there was no policy maker exception in Pickering free speech cases at the time plaintiff was forced to resign.

Dallio v. Hebert

678 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 28, 2009

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Wolff, 985 F.2d 662, 666 (2d Cir.1993) (qualified immunity protects defendants "even where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that their acts did not violate those

Bath Petroleum Storage, Inc. v. Sovas

136 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 21, 2001

Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Defendant Pearson claims that because he is, in effect, a prosecutor, absolute immunity protects him from this claim. In the alternative, he argues that qualified immunity protects him from any liability for this claim.

Gallegos Ex Rel. Gallegos v. Haggerty

689 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 12, 1988

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The qualified immunity doctrine provides immunity from suit, not simply trial, Mitchell v.

Billups v. New York State

885 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 21, 1995

Moreover, the privilege of qualified immunity provides an additional reason for denying this claim. … Once qualified immunity is pleaded, as it has been in this action, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected from personal liability unless their conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or

Davis v. Stratton

575 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 9, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendant D’Annibale also contends that he has qualified immunity from suit. … were all clearly established.