Case law

Wagner v. Swarts

827 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 2011

Determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity requires an answer to the following questions: (1) was a constitutionally protected right violated; and if so, (2) was that right “clearly established … Accordingly, an official is shielded by qualified immunity if his conduct either did not infringe on a “clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe his conduct did not

Zappala v. Albicelli

954 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 1997

The qualified immunity standard requires a two-prong inquiry. The first prong inquires whether the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established at the time the Defendants acted. … Clearly Established Prong The purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test is to ask whether the Defendant official should have been on notice that his conduct could implicate a “clearly established” constitutional

Fleming v. Sharma

605 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant acting in the course of his official duties is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pabon v.

Covell Ex Rel. Johnson v. County of Oswego

165 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 5, 2001

of the qualified immunity standard. … established prong” of the qualified immunity standard.

Ramirez v. Coughlin

919 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified immunity “shields state officials from liability where they did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Wright v. … “Even if established, therefore, qualified immunity is not grounds for dismissing all of [plaintiffs] claims.” Id.

33 Seminary LLC v. City of Binghamton

120 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 28, 2015

Absolute and Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that even if they violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because they did not violate a clearly … Defendants unreasonably violated a clearly established right of Plaintiffs.

Cuomo

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 24, 2026

Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 434, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing a defendant’s burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a “formidable hurdle”). … 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

Ryan v. Bell

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 2024

“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.” … July 2, 2020) (finding corrections officer entitled to qualified immunity because he held an objectively reasonable belief his actions were lawful, particularly in light of that fact that “there is no clearly established

Pritzker v. City of Hudson

26 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that, even if plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[ ].’ ”

McDonald v. City of Troy

District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 3, 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.” … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12-14 (2015) (reversing denial of qualified immunity because circuit court considered it clearly established that police officer may not “use deadly force against a fleeing felon who d[id] not pose

Rubeor v. Town of Wright

191 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 8, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time that it was violated. … Therefore, the constitutional right in question was not clearly established, and individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Henry v. Dinelle

929 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless … Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir.2007) ("[Ejven where the law is 'clearly established’ and the scope of an official's permissible conduct is 'clearly defined,' the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Brenden v. Castro

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2025

Therefore, Castro is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that individual defendants could be liable on a takings claim. See Novak v. … Castro is also not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a false claim of lawful authority can invalidate consent. See id; Amos v.

Hancock v. Cnty. of Rensselaer

337 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 29, 2018

Individual Defendants' Claims to Qualified Immunity Government employees are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages liability so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate "clearly established … Because the constitutional rights upon which Plaintiffs rely were not clearly established at the time Defendants acted, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Carter v. Broome County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 21, 2019

Supp. 3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "broader right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and applying it to pre-trial detainee). … True or not, qualified immunity would not attach to those facts.

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Fitzgerald, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).