Case law

Casale v. Kelly

257 F.R.D. 396 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 1, 2009

established law prohibited the conduct alleged, precluding a qualified immunity defense; 106 • The appropriateness of proposed legal remedies-should this Court find against defen *410 dants-including municipal liability … The question of whether a “reasonable person” would have been aware of such clearly established law is "an objective, not a subjective, test,” allowing for resolution of this issue on a class-wide basis. Id.

New York Land Co. v. Republic of Philippines

634 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1986

They rely primarily on the act-of-state doctrine, the immunity of President Marcos under Philippine law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq., the principle of forum non conveniens and the … Gimenez were made to an organization established by bank officials, “Oscarmen Holdings, Ltd.”

Douglas v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 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.” … Because Officer Garcia did not violate a clearly established right, she is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

Baoanan v. Baja

627 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 16, 2009

Baja next argues that the circumstances in this ease establish that his employment of Baoanan was official and not private, thus distinguishing the case from Swama. A brief summary of Swama is therefore appropriate. … his employment of a domestic worker, while a diplomatic agent who resides in a separate building adjoining or nearby his mission and employs a domestic worker to perform identical duties in an identical fashion, would not qualify

Ayyaz v. New York Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2021

immunity because it is not clearly established in the Second Circuit that Plaintiff had a constitutional right to be free from race and sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, outside of the employment context … argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because an auxiliary police officer’s employment status is an unresolved question of law, and was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Genao v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2025

Qualified immunity does not shield government officials from liability when “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Qualified immunity protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable for him to believe that his behavior did not violate the [plaintiff’s] clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the challenged

Grant v. City of New York

848 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1994

Defendants now move for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., dismissing these claims, or in the alternative summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. I. … Because the false arrest claim has been disposed of, the court need not consider the issue of qualified immunity. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Plaintiff's claims against Pia Johanson are not at issue here. 2 .

Monroe v. Gerbing

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Mem. 11.)2 “Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In determining whether a right is clearly established, the “inquiry turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

Omar Washington v. Daniel Martuscello III, et al.

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 2026

“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.” … Significant here, Defendants pursue qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss.

United States v. Butler

351 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

It is well established, and is in any event clear from the plain language of the statute, that the listing of perjury and false statement prosecutions as exceptions to the immunity provided “is not intended to be an exclusive … And if any other crime constitutes a “failure to comply with [the immunity] Order,” a conspiracy to obstruct the investigation by committing perjury oneself and encouraging others to do so plainly qualifies.

Hospital Ass'n of New York State, Inc. v. Toia

435 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1977

The second representation was clearly intended to take effect only if the State was ultimately found to owe the plaintiffs money in this lawsuit — the very issue raised by the 11th Amendment question. … Moreover, we doubt plaintiffs’ ability to establish this proposition.

Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

87 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 13, 2015

for arbitral awards. 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(6)(B); see also id. § 1610(a)(6) (establishing exception to sovereign immunity from attachment of assets where “the judgment is based on an order confirming an arbitral award rendered … A *598 final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.

Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2023

No. 47 ¶ 31 (“Defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have been aware, and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.”).

Parex Bank v. Russian Savings Bank

116 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 20, 2000

This Court concluded in a prior opinion that Sberbank, as an instrumentality or agency of the Russian State, qualifies as a “foreign state” under the FSIA. Parex Bank v. … The most relevant exception to foreign sovereign immunity is the “commercial activity” exception, which provides that a foreign state is not immune from suit in any case: in which the action is based upon ... an act outside

Drayton v. METROPLUS HEALTH PLAN, INC.

791 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 16, 2011

HHC, a *345 public benefit corporation established by the New York State Legislature, see N.Y. Unconsol. Law §§ 7381 et seq. … [of] providing commuter transportation” and thereby granted it the immunity from punitive damages enjoyed by political subdivisions under New York common law. Id.

Gilinsky v. Columbia University

488 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1980

As to the others, merely being subject to the laws of the State or the United States is clearly insufficient to show that action in violation of those laws is state action. … Clearly, the department was not seeking to appoint a tenured professor from outside the University whose specialization was in the area of sensation and perception.

Gibson v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

700 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 10, 1988

Judge Daronco granted summary judgment for defendants on the grounds that Hope failed to establish that he was qualified to receive acting editor duties sooner. … Thus, contrary to the May Order, Hope argues that he established that he was qualified to take on editorial responsibilities and was similarly situated to Caucasians who received acting editor duties at an earlier date.

New York State National Organization for Women v. Pataki

189 F.R.D. 286 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1999

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ damages claims based on their claim of qualified immunity. That motion was granted in part and denied in part by an opinion and order entered on July 24,1998. See NOW v. … Class Certification Challenges Under NOW II Defendants also argue that NOW II mooted subclass A’s and subclass B’s claims because the decision granted defendants qualified immunity from the claims of persons with pending

Vilastor-Kent Theatre Corp. v. Brandt

19 F.R.D. 522 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 6, 1956

Phillips that it comes within the “work-product immunity”. … That this memorandum comes within the “work-product” immunity seems to be clear from the following quotation from Hickman v. Taylor, supra.

Woods v. Candela

921 F. Supp. 1140 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 9, 1996

In the alternative, he claims is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because this Court concludes that the defendant acted with probable cause at all times and thus no unconstitutional search and seizure occurred, it need not reach the issue of the Trooper’s qualified immunity.