Case law

Campbell v. The New York State Office of Court Administration

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 2, 2025

To survive a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time … Sept. 17, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds where the defendant “only include[d] the legal standard for establishing qualified immunity and, in a conclusory manner, state[d] that the claims

Morrell v. Sampson

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 24, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that if Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is not dismissed, they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Abdul-Halim v. O'Meara

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also "immunity from suit").

American Automobile Manufacturers Ass'n v. Cahill

53 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 18, 1999

The remaining two prongs are also clearly established. First, the right created by § 209(a)’s prohibition is demonstrably not so vague and amorphous that its enforcement will strain judicial competence. … Thus, the rule, however non-intuitive, is clearly established that attorney's fees are available notwithstanding Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Turner v. Olympic Regional Development Authority

89 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 2, 2000

The first, N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 215(3), establishes a one-year limit for various intentional torts, including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. … (And sovereign immunity has its roots in pre-Conquest Roman and Saxon law, so counsel need no longer fling arrows at the Normans.)

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Village of Union Springs

293 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 28, 2003

This is clearly not the case here. … 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.”

Jemzura v. Belden

281 F. Supp. 200 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 16, 1968

, claim immunity. … Lee, Jr., and Peterson, as state judges, claim, and clearly are entitled to, judicial immunity. Common law immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, Bradley v.

Jackson v. County of Ulster

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 2022

Plaintiff’s Position - Qualified Immunity Plaintiff argues that Deputy Caliendo is not entitled to qualified immunity because, as of July 2021, it had been well established for over twenty years that a police … officer's actions are not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.”

McLoughlin v. Rensselaer County Department of Social Services

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified Immunity Analysis Defendants claim “none of their alleged actions violated clearly established law as of April 21, 2015.” Defs.’s Mem. at 11. … However, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the rights they allegedly infringed were not clearly established, and therefore they are not entitled to qualified immunity under the “first prong.”

Matzell v. Annucci

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 7, 2021

The qualified immunity analysis asks (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See Francis v. … CONCLUSION Matzell has plausibly alleged that DOCCS’ refusal to enroll him in Shock violated clearly established law. Accordingly, defendants’ bid for qualified immunity must be rejected.

Benedict v. Henderson

721 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 10, 1989

The common solution is that “a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case “clearly and expressly’’ states … Although I am firm in my conviction that procedural default has been established and bars this consideration, in view of the prolonged history of review, I accept this alternative recommendation.

Clark v. Dominique

798 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 28, 2011

P. 12(b)(6) is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard the court refers the parties to its decision in Ellis v. … Rell, 585 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir.2009) (“Judicial and quasi-judicial immunity are both absolute immunities.” (citations omitted)).

Hamilton v. Mead

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity 11 Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability under Section 1983 … In response, plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not apply here because Second Circuit case law “was well established ‘that prison officials have a duty to administer life-saving care even in the absence of a

Wilmorite, Inc. v. Eagan Real Estate, Inc.

454 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 29, 1977

Thus, the defendants in Trucking Unlimited could not avail themselves of Noerr’s antitrust immunity, since this immunity grows out of respect for the free exercise of First Amendment freedoms. … The allegations herein fall short of those in Noerr and, therefore, are clearly insufficient to state a claim under the sham exception.

Jamison v. Metz

865 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 15, 2011

immunity. … As a result, Plaintiffs excessive force claim against these Defendants is dismissed on the alternative ground of qualified immunity.

Durr v. Slator

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 30, 2023

"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "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

Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York

146 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 30, 2001

Sovereign Immunity The State broadly asserts that it, as well as the individually named State defendants, enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from all claims asserted by the tribal plaintiffs. … The Nonintercourse Act clearly protects Indian land within the United States. See Mohegan Tribe v.

Quinn v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

569 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 17, 1983

In the Court’s view, however, the UC & M program is quite clearly an educational program that prepares men and women for skilled employment. … Though clearly neither party would agree with the other’s characterization, the underlying material facts upon which those characterizations are based are not in dispute.

Barnes v. White

494 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 16, 1980

That requirement is clearly not met in this case. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, like other Indian tribes, is a quasi-sovereign entity, Morton v. … Regis tribe would be blatantly contrary to established federal law and policy.

Martinaj v. Uhler

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 27, 2023

to qualified immunity with respect to such claims because “the process due to Plaintiffs was not clearly established and, as such, no reasonable person in Defendants’ position would have known that their conduct was unlawful … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.