Case law

Dickinson v. Warren County Sheriff

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 22, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that York is entitled to qualified immunity. See Defs.’ Mem. of Law at 18–20. Defendants are correct. … Qualified immunity “shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Levine v. New York State Police

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

did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [his] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.” … Sept. 17, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss on qualified immunity where defendant “only include[d] the legal standard for establishing 11 Regardless of the type of relief sought by Levine, the Eleventh Amendment

Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Comfortex Corp.

44 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 3, 1999

AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995 , 1001 (Fed.Cir.1986). 15 Clearly, a patentee who uses a patent to violate the antitrust laws is guilty of patent misuse; if a patentee’s action does not qualify as an antitrust violation, however, … Nevertheless, commentators have recognized that “a close relationship clearly exists between the misuse doctrine and the antitrust laws.” 6 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents, § 19.04, at 19-300 (1994).

Williams v. Annucci

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 13, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this early stage.

Brown v. Costello

905 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 31, 1995

In the present case, the events that form the gravamen of plaintiffs’ second cause of action are clearly untimely. As stated above, plaintiffs allege that Mr. … Larkin’s absolute immunity to civil liability. See Cok, 876 F.2d at 3-4 .

Harker v. Utica College of Syracuse University

885 F. Supp. 378 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 24, 1995

Here, the evidence clearly established dispositive nondiscriminatory reasons for defendants’ decision not to renew plaintiffs contract, and plaintiff failed to establish any genuine issue as to these reasons. Cronin v. … In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, plaintiff must show that she (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was discharged from that position; and (4)

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

136 F.R.D. 42 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 17, 1991

This document is clearly relevant and clearly predecisional. What cannot be determined is whether it is deliberative. … Clearly, if the materials sought are relevant or calculated to lead to admissible evidence, they may be discovered.

Lee v. The City of Troy

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 16, 2021

"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." … Under those assumed facts, defendants' use of force would violate clearly-established law and thus not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Banks v. City of Albany

953 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 1997

Clearly, if the DOH rescinds Banks’ EMT certification he cannot be considered “qualified” to be a firefighter. … This is clearly not the law, and Defendants’ constrained definition of “rejection” is rejected, or rather, not accepted.

Fava v. Ward

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 5, 2021

Plaintiff’s argument does not, however, address the standard for 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

Pfeiffer v. Lewis County

308 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 17, 2004

The references to wearing shorter dresses, lower cut attire, and “bitches” clearly can be considered to be gender-based. … With respect to the issue of legislative immunity, the Second Circuit has stated that Legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities.

TM Park Avenue Associates v. Pataki

986 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 21, 1997

immunity. … With respect to TM, Chapter 312 clearly works a substantial impairment to the TM-SUNY lease.

Follette v. Vitanza

658 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 27, 1987

A party basing its § 1983 claim on the violation of a federal statute must establish that the statute at issue created “rights, privileges, or immunities” within the meaning of § 1983 and that Congress did not foreclose private … However, it cannot be disputed that the Attorney General’s office is sufficiently qualified to conduct this action and, particularly in light of the fact that plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of procedures established

Hicks v. The City of Syracuse

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 27, 2019

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Defendants argue 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

Vandewalker v. Quandt's Food Service Distributors, Inc.

934 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 1996

Defendant argues that plaintiff has not, and cannot establish that gender was a factor in its decision to terminate her. Def. Mem. at 7. … Because the magistrate judge’s order is not clearly erroneous, defendant’s motion to reconsider is denied.

Canfield v. State of New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity Trooper Irwin also argues that “without a showing of a violation of a clearly established right and affirmative proof of some ultra vires conduct .. … Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd. v. Consolidated Medical Equipment, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 10, 1986

“Where validity and infringement have been clearly established, immediate irreparable harm is presumed.” Roper, 757 F.2d at 1271 citing Smith International v. Hughes Tool Company, 718 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983). … Certainly, at least at this point, infringement has not been clearly established in the case sub judice. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the presumption that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm.

Siano Enders v. Boone

District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim because “it was not clearly established … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the

Pejovic v. State University of New York at Albany

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 6, 2020

No. 95 at 4 83-93, to which Benson has asserted a qualified immunity defense. Dkt. No. 96 at § 15. That defense is clearly available to such a claim. … “If [Plaintiffs] wish[] to challenge [Defendant’s] assertion of qualified immunity, [they] should do so by developing a factual record through discovery to support [their] argument.” Kiss v.

Guarneri v. Schoharei County Dept of Socail Service

District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 21, 2021

The Complaint fails to allege a deprivation of federal rights established elsewhere. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) … (“The law is well established that under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, both the State of New York and its subdivisions are immune from [§1983] suits such as this.”).