Case law

Crown v. Danby Fire District

178 F. Supp. 3d 41 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the right at issue was clearly established, a public official is still entitled to qualified immunity if “officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual

Lewis v. Mollette

752 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 24, 2010

any clearly established right. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Frobel v. County of Broome

419 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that defendant Bill is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs excessive force claim. … Qualified immunity shields governmental officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were clearly established at the time.”

Hansel v. Sheridan

991 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 20, 1998

The doctrine of. qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capae- *75 ity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an … The parties do not dispute that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Malay v. City of Syracuse

638 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 14, 2009

The government official, for his part, may assert the personal immunity defense of qualified immunity. See id. … Regarding Defendants’ argument that Miguel and Does 1 through 10 are entitled to qualified immunity, “the Second Circuit has declared that while ‘[a] qualified immunity defense can be presented in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion .

Payne v. Axelrod

871 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 4, 1995

Nor is CO White entitled to dismissal of this claim on the basis of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … Defendant White, however, would probably be immune from a claim based solely on the intentional filing of false charges because this line of cases was not clearly established in 1989, as Lowrance and Grillo were not decided

LaGrange v. Ryan

142 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officer Ryan seeks qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims of false arrestyunlawful imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful search and seizure. … “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

Leland v. Moran

100 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 22, 2000

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from being held liable for civil damages arising from their actions which do ‘not violate clearly established … Consequently, the individual Ellenville defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Sagendorf-Teal v. County of Rensselaer

904 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 22, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint on the basis that he was entitled to qualified immunity for his act of terminating the plaintiff. … The defendant is not entitled to a dismissal based upon qualified immunity. 4.

Hoffman v. County of Delaware

41 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 12, 1999

Whitten also is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Mental Hyg.Law § 9.27 and, accordingly, Moon’s actions are protected by qualified immunity.

Kisembo v. NYS Office of Children & Family Servs.

285 F. Supp. 3d 509 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 1, 2018

In sum, plaintiffs have offered no legitimate reason to doubt whether OCFS qualifies as a state agency for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, their § 1983 claims against OCFS are subject to dismissal. … Defendants also seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, timeliness, improper service, and a lack of personal involvement on the part of any of the named defendants.

Mendoza v. City of Rome

70 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 5, 1999

Qualified immunity is a defense that, if proven, shields government agents from individual liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not *145 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … 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 those

Gill v. Smith

283 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 11, 2003

, and (3) that qualified immunity barred Plaintiffs claims. … Defendant’s qualified immunity defense 5 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Granito v. Tiska

181 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 12, 2001

Standard for Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is appropriate where the defendant did not violate a clearly established right, or where reasonable officers could disagree as to the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions … The parties here do not dispute that the right to be free from an unlawful arrest and prosecution was a clearly established right.

Whitley v. Miller

57 F. Supp. 3d 152 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants concede Whitley’s “right to due process at a prison disciplinary hearing is well-established,” but contend Hearing Officer Miller “acted reasonably” in determining plaintiffs guilt. Defs.’ … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Woodard v.

JOSEPH'S HOUSE AND SHELTER v. City of Troy, NY

641 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 5, 2009

Currently before the Court is Defendant City’s motion, for summary judgment on the grounds of legislative immunity and privilege, failure to establish prima facie retaliation, and the presence of a legitimate non-retaliatory … defense, either qualified or absolute, in a suit under § 1983.”

Jackson v. Johnson

118 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 13, 2000

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from being held liable for civil damages arising from their actions which do ‘not violate clearly established … Commissioner Johnson and Director Farkas are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Catone v. Spielmann

966 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1997

(b) Qualified Immunity The preceding discussion, however, makes clear that Spielmann is entitled to qualified *1297 immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim. … 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.

Abdush-Shahid v. Coughlin

933 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

The defendants also assert that in any event they are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … Although the plaintiffs right to prompt medical treatment was clearly established at all times relevant to this suit, the defendants are still entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, however, if they can

Shapiro v. Cooke

552 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 27, 1982

Plaintiff contends that, had he worked in Maryland as an “Assistant People’s Counsel’^ for the past five years, he would clearly satisfy the requirements of the New York rule. … Simply because the plaintiff cannot qualify for this preference, but must qualify on the same terms as the life-long citizen of New York, gives him no right to complain.