Case law

Johnson v. STATE DEPT. 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

Martin v. Leiter

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 23, 2023

Clearly established law cannot be defined at a high level of generality; instead, the inquiry focuses on the “specific factual situation the officers confronted, and the defendants will be entitled to qualified immunity … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563

Zeigler v. New York

948 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 7, 2013

Various courts throughout the County are charged with appointing attorneys from these panels to represent indigent criminal defendants who qualify for free legal services. … It is well-established that judges enjoy “absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions.” Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir.2009).

Delacruz

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

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless either (1) the official violated a statutory constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged … if so, whether that right was “clearly established”; and (3) even if the right was “clearly established,” whether it was “objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful.”

Pritzker v. City of Hudson

47 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 4, 1999

Even if defendants acted without probable cause, for the reasons discussed, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that their acts did not violate plaintiffs … Accordingly, Moon is entitled to qualified immunity. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED

Avitzur v. Davidson

549 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 21, 1982

An order was then issued denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment with leave to renew, and inviting in particular information with respect to defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity under Butz v. … As a result of our conclusions it has not been necessary to reach the defendant’s assertions of qualified immunity. 1 The events leading to this action arise out of Avitzur’s employment as a researcher in metallurgical sciences

Boyd v. Coughlin

914 F. Supp. 828 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 2, 1996

If it meets the test, there is no violation of the Establishment Clause. … Qualified Immunity Given the foregoing discussion, the court need not address the issue of qualified immunity at this time. III.

Parks v. United States

241 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 15, 1965

The worth of Rule 14 and its general purposes out *300 lined are clearly just as impressive and useful in litigation involving a third-party State defendant as an individual or company one: “ * * * to avoid two actions which … However, I find nothing in existing law or in the agreement as written that would justify a ruling that New York waived its sovereign immunity from suit of its own citizens, or waived or surrendered such immunity to subject

Smith v. Town of Lloyd

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 27, 2020

did not pose a threat was clearly established. … Finally, Plaintiffs argue that because the Court could not locate caselaw that clearly established the illegality of Riley’s actions, qualified immunity should have been denied because it was clearly established that Gordon

Williams v. Olsen

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 1, 2022

Consequently, qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions are satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively … Instead, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Defendants did not violate clearly established federal law, or alternatively, it was objectively reasonable for Defendants to believe their

Board of Education of the Pawling Central School District v. Schutz

137 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 3, 2001

They also move to dismiss the complaint against SRO Munoz on the grounds of qualified and absolute immunity. The individual defendants also move to dismiss the IDEA claim against them pursuant to Fed. … In addition, defendants argue that SRO Munoz is entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity as a "quasi-judicial” official.

Bostick v. Rappleyea

629 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 5, 1985

Legislative Immunity The Supreme Court has established that members of a state legislature enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages actions when acting within “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” … such employment from the scope of immunity.

Jones

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 13, 2026

“When a plaintiff shows facts making out a violation of a constitutional right, a defendant may establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity by demonstrating that (1) the right was not ‘clearly established’ or … There, the Second Circuit held that the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff had “not shown that police officers violate clearly established law by allowing a canine bite to continue

Echols v. Knoth

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 6, 2022

"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 … "Even if the force is objectively unreasonable, an officer may still be eligible for qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that her action did not violate clearly established law."

Sebast v. Mahan

754 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 16, 2010

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, the court denies defendants’ motions on the issue of qualified immunity. F.

Noga v. City of Schenectady Police Officers

169 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 9, 2001

Defendant Lewis also argues for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is allowed for a police officer when it was " 'objectively reasonable’ for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the challenged act.” Lennon v.

Ausfeldt v. Runyon

950 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 2, 1997

Finally, the plaintiff must establish that the' conduct was unwelcome. Vinson, 477 U.S. at 68 , 106 S.Ct. at 2406 . These elements, once established, combine to show an abusive work environment. … In order to establish the prima facie case, plaintiff must demonstrate that: (i) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (ii) [s]he was qualified for the position; (iii) [s]he was subjected to an adverse employment decision

Frasier v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

779 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 25, 1991

Sovereign Immunity 1. Background A common thread running through the government’s motion to dismiss is the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Such regulations and procedures shall clearly indicate that obscenity is without artistic merit, is not protected speech, and shall not be funded.

Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hospital

485 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 7, 2007

All defendants allege they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; or (2) the defendant's action was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established legal rules then in effect.”

Butler v. Hesch

286 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity Both the ATF and the Schenectady Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the malicious prosecution claim because "arguable probable cause" existed. See Dkt. … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, a police officer may still avoid liability even if his actions did not conform to constitutional standards where " '(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory