Case law

Lyde v. New York City

145 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2001

The general rule is that “ ‘doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their *354 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Even 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 if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Grossman v. United States

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

While Defendant Rezak raises a qualified immunity defense in his support brief, courts in this Circuit have long held that qualified immunity “turns on factual questions that cannot be resolved at [the motion to dismiss … Supp. 2d 659, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[r]esolution of qualified immunity depends on the determination of certain factual questions that cannot be answered at this stage of the litigation.” Denton v.

Zieper v. Metzinger

392 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2005

Amendment, I must consider whether the defendants have established that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … I conclude that such an inquiry would be too narrow, and conflates the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry with the “reasonable officer” prong.

Ramirez v. Holmes

921 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … For Ramirez to defeat Holmes’s use of the qualified immunity shield, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right with respect to his claims.

Tsotesi v. Board of Education of the City School District

258 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 23, 2003

of Board policies violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” 12 *339 Conclusion The motion of the BOE Defendants for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint as to them is granted insofar … Vermont Dep’t of Educ., 313 F.3d 768 , 793 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that “a ruling on the availability of a qualified immunity defense would be premature” because “[t]he qualified immunity issue in this case turns on factual

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Hernandez v. Selsky

572 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008

“[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … “Hence, a defendant is not liable if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law.”

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

Gilmore-Bey v. Coughlin

929 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 1996

The defendants clearly are entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken prior to the effective date of the statute, November 16, 1993. As found in Woods v. … Therefore, the law cannot be said to have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct underlying this action, and the defendants are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Rothschild v. Grottenthaler

716 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the standard established in Harlow v. … Only the individual defendant, Charles Grotten-thaler, may be eligible for qualified immunity. The good faith immunity created by Harlow applies only to “government officials performing discretionary functions.”

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Moray v. City of Yonkers

924 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in eases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly … Even when the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established, qualified immunity may still bar a plaintiffs suit if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate the rights

Landy v. Irizarry

884 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1995

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a police officer must establish facts satisfying one of two tests: “either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, … , do not violate clearly established rights of which they should have known.

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ALVARADO’S UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM Alvarado argues that the Court should not have dismissed his unlawful search claim on qualified immunity grounds as a material factual dispute remained regarding the … Only Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent existing at the time of the alleged violation is relevant in deciding whether a right is clearly established.”).

Estate of Jaquez v. City of New York

104 F. Supp. 3d 414 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … “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

Chayo v. Kaladjian

844 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v. … Accord Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 (stating that test for qualified immunity “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts” in light of “clearly established” legal rules); Ying Jing

Rodriguez v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

were not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.” … established for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

Ippolito v. Meisel

958 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1997

Since plaintiff asked for a declaration that Sutcliffe violated “clearly established laws,” however, and this is the same standard used to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, see Wachtler, 35 F … .3d at 80 , and we have found that Officer Sutcliffe is entitled to such immunity, it follows that he cannot have violated “clearly established laws.”

Dejesus v. Village of Pelham Manor

282 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 2003

“Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Wilson v. … established federal law to rebut the defense of qualified immunity.