Case law

Schallop v. New York State Department of Law

20 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 14, 1998

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants next contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Sehallop’s free speech claims under section 1983. … Qualified immunity shields government employees with discretionary responsibilities from liability for civil damages provided their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Knighton v. City of Syracuse Fire Department

145 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 15, 2001

In addition, to prevail on the claim against Cummings in his individual capacity, the Court must find that qualified immunity does not apply. " 'The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from suits seeking … "A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to immunity from § 1983 suits if either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Chiesa v. New York State Department of Labor

638 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 31, 2009

As to the regarded as disabled prong, plaintiff presents several statements tending to establish enough facts for her to possibly qualify as disabled under that prong. … Sovereign Immunity and Title V State immunity or liability under each title of the ADA is decided title by title, as a claim using each title arises. United States v.

KERCADO-CLYMER v. City of Amsterdam

608 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 10, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 . … The issue of qualified immunity is decided as a matter of law, and plaintiffs failure to argue against qualified immunity is of no consequence.

Woods v. City of Utica

902 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 5, 2012

The County defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, which protects state actors from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The County defendants will not be granted qualified immunity because “a pretrial detainee’s right not to be recklessly denied treatment for a serious medical condition was ‘clearly established’ at the time these events transpired

Marriott v. County of Montgomery

227 F.R.D. 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that “indiscriminate strip searches” are unconstitutional. … Further, qualified immunity is not appropriate where, as here, there was a clearly established right to be free from a strip search in the absence of reasonable suspicion.

Lee v. City of Syracuse

603 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

qualified immunity under § 1983. … Therefore, defendant Heenan’s claim of qualified immunity will fail.

Cadwallader v. Devlin

155 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 7, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that 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

Merriman v. Town of Colonie

934 F. Supp. 501 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 1996

A governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Summary judgment in favor of a public officer based on qualified immunity is appropriate when, at the time the officer was acting, the right in question was not clearly established, or even if the right was established, it

Rarick v. DeFrancesco

94 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 28, 2000

Defendants ’ Claim of Qualified Immunity As a general rule, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions either if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights or if it … As with Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity on Plaintiffs false arrest claim, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim because a rational jury could

Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. Liverpool Central School

186 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 11, 2002

The Constitutionality of New York Public Health Law § 2164(9) 5 Defendants contend that the statutory exemption to New York State’s immunization requirement violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the … In determining whether an individual qualifies for an exemption from the immunization requirement under § 2164(9), courts have utilized a two-prong analysis.

DiMarco v. Rome Hosp. & Murphy Memorial Hosp.

899 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 2, 1995

Fifth Cause of action And Qualified Immunity As to defendants’ claim that the Court should reconsider its Order with respect to the Fifth cause of action and the claim for qualified immunity, the Court finds that the defendants … The Court particularly is vexed at the defendants’ continued attempts to reargue the issue of qualified immunity.

Jermosen v. Coughlin

878 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 14, 1995

That Court, while specifically addressing the immunity to be afforded defendant Selsky in his quasi-judicial capacity, held that Selsky was entitled to only qualified immunity. Young v. … The Young court did hold, of course, that Selsky may be entitled to qualified immunity.' Young, 41 F.3d at 54 .

Storm v. Town of Woodstock, NY

944 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 31, 1996

Accordingly, the issues in this case are fit for judicial determination. 2 Personal Immunity Defenses Personal immunity defenses such as absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity only protect defendants acting … Since plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims against defendants Mower and Hughes in their individual capacities, defendants’ claims that these defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity and/or qualified immunity

Flight v. Gloeckler

878 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 1995

Similarly, the Second Circuit has noted that “the law governing § 504 did not clearly establish an obligation to meet [a handicapped individual’s] particular needs vis-a-vis the needs of other handicapped individuals, but … In order to establish a prima facie claim under section 1983, plaintiff must show that a person or persons acting under color of state law has deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

Zahran Ex Rel. Zahran v. New York Department of Education

306 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 2004

Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Article 89, Section 1983, and ADA Claims The DOE claims that it is immune from suit under Article 89, Section 1983, and ADA. … It is well established that neither the state nor its agencies, including the DOE, can be sued under Section 1983, see Spencer v.

Walker v. Tormey

178 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2016

Defendants Judge Tormey and Klein additionally contend that they are entitled to judicial immunity, or, alternatively, qualified immunity. Klein Mem. at 8-12; Tormey Mem. at 14-17. … arrest on the qualified immunity side.’”

Krug v. County of Rennselaer

559 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2008

Further, although Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims, they have failed to submit sufficient affidavits upon which the Court can adequately address their qualified immunity defense … Defendants argue that they were not involved in the van search, had no knowledge of it, or are entitled to qualified immunity.

Damiano v. City of Amsterdam

466 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 19, 2006

Qualifíed Immunity Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … to such conduct by the defendant was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) if the defendant’s conduct was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

Gabriel v. County of Herkimer

889 F. Supp. 2d 374 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 6, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … These individual County defendants have failed to set forth undisputed evidence that establishes they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.