Case law

Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

841 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 11, 2012

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act a. … Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 19 F.R.D. 235 (S.D.N.Y.1956) (unclear whether National Bank of Poland qualified as foreign sovereign, or whether commercial exception to sovereign immunity would have applied under

Stora

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 30, 2025

The initial entrance wasn’t clearly unlawful, so defendants are shielded by qualified immunity Stora’s Fourth Amendment challenge turns on the validity of … Here, qualified immunity shields the parole officers.

Rosner v. Bank of China

528 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 2007

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. … Regardless of how indispensable or essential such services may have been, rendering a professional service by itself does not qualify as participation in a RICO enterprise. See Dubai Islamic Bank v.

Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2021

While qualified immunity is ordinarily an affirmative defense asserted in an answer, a defendant can properly raise a qualified immunity defense in a pre-answer 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Daugevelo v. … If an official’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Javits v. Stevens

382 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1974

Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, 20 and lawyers subject to such proceedings are entitled to the elements of procedural due process. 21 “No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established … No other body is as well qualified or as interested in determining whether an attorney is qualified to practice law.

Tatum v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2021

In his Opposition, Tatum points to no controlling authority clearly establishing the rights at issue here. This alone seems to suggest that qualified immunity applies. See Sampedro v. Schriro, 377 F. … Because Sergeant Facey, Officer Davis, and Officer Matos did not violate a clearly established right with regard to Tatum’s Fourth Amendment claims, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mozdziak v. Romeo

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

Even in that case, he would be obliged to defeat the qualified immunity defense raised by defendant in order for the claim to be sustained.49 A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for … to have existed, an arresting officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity from a suit for damages if he can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest.

White v. Jones

636 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1986

Memo at 17; Tr. at 316-17, 321-22, 346-53. 10 It is well-established in this Circuit that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment “does not support a claim for defense witness immunity.” … Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir.1980), heavily relied upon by petitioner here, is clearly inapposite.

In re Barclays Liquidity Cross & High Frequency Trading Litigation

126 F. Supp. 3d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 26, 2015

The party seeking that protection bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to absolute immunity. See, e.g., D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir.2001). … The provision of co-location services and proprietary data feeds does not qualify as manipulative under these definitions.

Rodriguez v. N.Y. State Dept. of Parole

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 2020

Apart from concluding that Plaintiff failed to plead the elements of any federal claim, Judge Cott also recommended dismissal based on affirmative defenses of qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and collateral … not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position would have known.”).

Shargel v. Fenton

459 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 1978

testimony as is necessary to establish the corpus delicti of the offense. … As was stated in Frumento, supra, at 543 , and quoted with approval in Apfelbaum, supra, at 1270: “Clearly, if a witness had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, the government could have no testimony available with which

Kindler v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2019

established for qualified immunity purposes simply because the right to be released after one’s maximum term of imprisonment is clearly established. … conduct is clearly established.”

Marcello v. Long Island Railroad

465 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 9, 1979

Thus, the Baxter decision clearly provides that the plaintiff was not denied due process because he was not provided with immunity for statements that he might have made at the disciplinary hearing. II. … This argument, however, is clearly without merit.

Jimenez Jr. v. City of New Rochelle

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if the right was clearly established

Ruggiero v. Jones

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 2024

“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 … If an official’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Hirsh v. State of Israel

962 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 8, 1997

Plaintiffs also aver that Israel assumed an obligation to make payments to Holocaust survivors who immigrated to Israel out of a fund established by West Germany pursuant to the treaty. See id. … Clearly, this is not the sort of “commercial” activity of foreign sovereigns that Congress intended to reach through the commercial activity exception. See Wolf v.

The Beaverton

273 F. 539 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1919

. -, would settle the question of the Daisai Maru’s immunity from arrest on December 22, 1917. … A. 345 , decided that the test of immunity was the possession of the foreign sovereign, not its ownership. A fortiori the relation of charterer will not give immunity.

Armstead v. Town of Harrison

579 F. Supp. 777 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 1984

Plaintiff s claims clearly arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976 & Supp. V 1981); Fogel v. … Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943, 953 (7th Cir.1983) (absolute judicial immunity); Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188, 1195-97 (5th Cir. 1981) (absolute legislative immunity); Gorman Towers, Inc. v.

Jackson v. Johnson

15 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 23, 1998

not “clearly established in 1996.” 56 The Court disagrees. … As to the qualified immunity argument, “[gjovemment officials are protected from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Orenstein v. Figel

677 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 30, 2009

Analysis To succeed on a claim for libel, or defamation based on written statements, pursuant to New York law, 2 a plaintiff must establish the “elements [of] a false statement, published without privilege or authorization … An absolute privilege exists “[w]hen compelling public policy requires that the speaker be immune from suit,” *710 Liberman v.