Case law

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.

Galusha v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

27 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 9, 1998

The APA, the DEC, and the State of New York all qualify as public entities under the ADA. c. … CONCLUSION The balance of equities in this case clearly rests with the Plaintiffs. Their harm is irreparable and incalculable.

Luessenhop v. Clinton County, NY

558 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 28, 2008

We found that the individual Defendants, Bin-gel and Duprey, were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed them from this action, and further found that punitive damages could not be pursued against a municipal defendant … Clinton County hones in on those hours spent on preparing motions *269 or oppositions thereto on issues before this Court such as qualified immunity, punitive damages, summary judgment, all of which Luessenhop lost.

Skeen

District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 29, 2026

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the fair trial claim, as it was “objectively reasonable for the Defendants [to] believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights.” … 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 have

Grandinetti v. Tashjian

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

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … , in the alternative, Defendant is protected by qualified immunity.

Emma v. Schenectady City School District

28 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 1998

The dispute primarily centers on whether plaintiffs three-month service as interim principal qualified as substituted service under N.Y. Educ. … To establish a protected property interest, plaintiff must establish a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment as a tenured principal in the District. See Perry v.

Baptist

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 7, 2025

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or … Defendants Figueroa and Harcher argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their personal involvement in the violation of any clearly established constitutional right

Roberts v. New York

911 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 3, 2012

In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court established an exception to state sovereign immunity in federal actions where an individual brings an action seeking injunctive relief … Osborn, 211 F.3d 324, 328 (6th Cir.2000) (noting that the burden is on *171 the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity).

Cayuga Indian Nation Ex Rel. Patterson v. Cuomo

565 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 19, 1983

New York holding clearly applies — perhaps *1308 in even greater force — to the defense of Tenth Amendment immunity: the States implicitly granted Congress the power to abrogate their immunity with respect to Indian affairs … Quite clearly, that requisite continuity of statutory policy is present in the case at bar.

Engles

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability under Section 1983 in two circumstances: “(1) their conduct did not violate clearly established … However, “a ruling on qualified immunity on this record would be premature, and the Court declines to address qualified immunity here.” Blazquez v.

Crum v. Dodrill

562 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

, clearly envisioned by Heck [v. … detail the merits of Defendants’ alternative argument in favor of dismissal (i.e., that they are protected from liability as a matter of law by the doctrine of qualified immunity).

Golden v. Gagne

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … of a statutory or constitutional right”; and (2) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Osterweil v. Bartlett

819 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 20, 2011

the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the state that he visits. … The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that ‘‘[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2. .

Walker v. Village of Baldwinsville, Police, ect.

District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 14, 2023

"To balance the need for accountability and the potential chilling effect, 'the Supreme Court established qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims.'" Id. (quotation omitted). … "The doctrine of 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

Daniels

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 2, 2026

“Even if an officer violated a plaintiff’s clearly established rights, he ‘will still be entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.’” … Qualified Immunity Dr. Cahill argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Briglin’s rights were not clearly established, and even if they were Dr.

Gibson v. Reardon

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 11, 2025

“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. … Accordingly, because it was not clearly established at the time of the incidents in question that missing just a few meals could be the basis for a First Amendment claim summary judgment, based on qualified immunity

Mancucci v. Kinnear

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 3, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability in two circumstances: “(1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … reasonable to believe that their acts did not violate these clearly established rights.”

Brown v. State

975 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2013

In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court established an exception to state sovereign immunity in federal actions where an individual brings an action seeking injunctive relief … Osborn, 211 F.3d 324, 328 (6th Cir.2000) (holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity).

Mercy Hospital of Watertown v. New York State Department of Social Services

171 B.R. 490 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 27, 1994

Mercy continued to serve Medicaid patients as a debtor-in-possession throughout its reorganization and received a series of new numbers for services provided through its newly established facility, Mercy Center for Health … immunity.”

Bedore v. Lind

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 31, 2023

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Under federal law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where ‘(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2