Case law

Briseno

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 23, 2026

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 person would … “In addition, qualified immunity protects state actors when it was objectively reasonable for the state actor to believe that his [or her] conduct did not violate a clearly established right.” Trapani v.

Frazier v. Turning Stone Casino

254 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2003

It is well-established, however, that an Indian tribe is not a foreign state and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act does not impair the immunity of Indian tribes. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. … This Court clearly lacks the authority to abrogate the long-recognized common-law immunity from suit that Indian tribes and tribal entities have enjoyed.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York

194 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 29, 2002

However, it is also a well established rule of law that the State should retain its immunity to the extent that the Plaintiffs raise any claims that conflict with those of the United States. … However, it is well established that when the United States or an Indian tribe initiates a lawsuit, a defendant may assert counterclaims that sound in recoupment even absent a statutory waiver of immunity.

Nationwide Tarps, Inc. v. Midwest Canvas Corp.

228 F. Supp. 2d 202 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 16, 2002

NTI does not argue that MCC’s tests do not establish the proposition for which they were cited. … If you do this, you must clearly and conspicuously state the conditions under which the system R-value can be attained. 16 C.F.R. § 460.12 (b)(6).

Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Young

805 F. Supp. 1073 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 12, 1992

Defendants contend that public officials have a qualified immunity against civil liability and that such immunity may serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss. … In opposition, plaintiffs argue that “defendants have not established that their action did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Eastman v. Walker

895 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 31, 1995

Qualified Immunity and Defendants’ Failure to Respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Requests Because this Court finds no Fourteenth Amendment violation here, there is no need for Defendants to answer Plaintiffs interrogatories … and no need for this Court to address the issue of Defendants’ qualified immunity in regard to the fourth day Plaintiff spent in keeplock.

Pratt ex rel. Petranchuk v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist.

803 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 29, 2011

The Court rejects Defendants' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, contrary to Defendants' belief, at the time of the alleged conduct, it was clearly established that “discrimination on the basis … Sept. 19, 2006) (rejecting defendants' qualified immunity argument because ”[t]he existence of a high profile and widely publicized case, such as Romer [v.

Luedeke v. Village of New Paltz

63 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 1999

“A government agent enjoys qualified immunity when he or she performs discretionary functions if either (1) the conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … objectively reasonable to believe that the conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Hawkins v. County of Oneida, NY

497 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 24, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To be sure, the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is clearly established.

Maddox v. Francemone

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 17, 2025

Standard “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Clearly Established Right Here, the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—the existence of a constitutional violation—was established by the jury verdict holding Defendant liable

Johnson v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

709 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 30, 2010

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-101 , 104 S.Ct. 900, 908 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (holding that states and their respective agencies are immune from suits brought by citizens in federal court “regardless of the nature of the relief … Absent any allegation of a state officer’s personal involvement, simply naming him as a defendant is nothing more than “making him a party as a representative of the state” in an effort to circumvent the state’s sovereign immunity

Pazamickas v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Development Disabilities

963 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 28, 1997

. ¶ 19) each qualify, for the purposes of this motion, as adverse employment actions. 5 See Dortz v. … Nothing in the HRL provides any basis for finding that New York State has waived Eleventh Amendment immunity thereunder. Jungels v.

Brown v. City of Oneonta

911 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 1996

immunity; (2) denial of the law enforcement defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of an alleged qualified immunity; (3) denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 … These circumstances clearly raise a material factual issue as to whether a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.

War

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 26, 2026

Qualified immunity "'The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … "[A] motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity 'will only be granted if the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established right.'" Sales v. Barizone, No. 03 Civ. 6691 (RJH), 2004 U.S. Dist.

Tayler v. Travelers Insurance

183 F.R.D. 67 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 5, 1998

Travelers asserts that this information qualifies as material prepared in anticipation of litigation and is therefore immune from discovery, absent a *69 showing of substantial need and undue hardship. … “Under Rule 26(b)(3), three conditions must be satisfied in order to establish work product protection.

Walker v. Schult

365 F. Supp. 3d 266 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2019

Defendants further argued that qualified immunity shielded them from liability. On January 20, 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Randolph F. … Third, he plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights. Id . at 126 .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation v. United States Department of Energy

772 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 13, 1991

This well settled rule, first established by Chief Justice Marshall in M’Culloch v. … Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 , 106 S.Ct. 2957 , 92 L.Ed.2d 250 *105 (1986), the Supreme Court specifically held that waivers of sovereign immunity with respect to interest awards must be clearly expressed by Congress in addition to

Harris v. Binghamton Police Department

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 7, 2023

“An 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. … Supp. 3d 178, 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (explaining that in order to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds at the pleading stage, the “facts establishing arguable probable cause” must be “‘clear from the face of the [complaint

Croy v. A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital

68 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 28, 1999

Evelyn Evelyn also moves to dismiss the defamation action against him claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity and that he did not act with malice. … Even without the qualified immunity of § 6527(5), plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim must, nevertheless, fail.

LeClaire

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 17, 2026

But even if Plaintiffs had not conceded on the issue of qualified immunity, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a clearly established constitutional violation and that Defendants have met … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would