Case law

Bowman

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2026

“To be proper, an objection must be clearly aimed at particular findings, and may not be conclusory or general.” Riaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20 Civ. 8418 (JPC) (SLC), 2022 WL 4482297, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. … It “is well-established that there is no individual liability under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, whether the individual is sued in their official or individual capacity.” Goe v.

Roggenbach v. Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine

7 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 13, 2014

That clearly relates to charge number two, which is furnishing false information to the college. In my defense, the lie was sustained for a very short period of time.”)) … , he has not presented evidence that similarly situated individuals were treated differently, nor that he was otherwise qualified to remain a student.

Nicholas v. Miller

109 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2000

As the Court of Appeals intimated, plaintiff has by no means established that there clearly exists an associational right under the First Amendment for prisoners to organize for the adversarial functions that plaintiff demands … Miller and Robert Hanslmaier on grounds of qualified immunity. 2 .

Barnett

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 9, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … If an official’s belief that his or her action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he or she is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Kaplan v. County of Orange

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 2021

“[T]he 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 … Individual Town Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established that the police could not rely on threats of suicide as reported by an identified treating mental health

L'Europeenne De Banque v. La Republica De Venezuela

700 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 18, 1988

states are not immune. … Venezuela claims entitlement to sovereign immunity.

Wist

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2025

“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.” … (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Villalobos v. Captain Smith

District Court, S.D. New York · May 16, 2022

failed to establish a defense of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Holloway v. Carey

482 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 1979

It is well-established in this Circuit that “[cjomplaints relying on the civil rights statutes are plainly insufficient unless they contain some specif *554 ic allegations of fact indicating a deprivation of civil rights … , cloak of immunity for acts taken in their official capacities.

CINE 42ND ST. THEATER v. Nederlander Org.

609 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1985

In Parker , the California legislature authorized the establishment of an agricultural marketing program that restricted competition among growers and stabilized prices. … The Court held, however, that the program was immune from federal antitrust attack because "it derived its authority and efficacy from the legislative command of the state." Id.

Ellis v. The State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir

101 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 6, 2000

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague v. … Clearly, some governmental functions and activities are undoubtedly events which the City must organize. Mayoral inaugurations and ceremonies honoring civil servants qualify as public events.

Tall v. Town of Cortlandt

709 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 1989

These events were alleged to deprive the Tails of their rights, privileges and immunities. Compensatory and punitive damages were sought. … No material facts have been set forth to establish the conspiracy, and summary judgment on the conspiracy claims is granted.

Zherka v. Ryan

52 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2014

Defendants are correct in arguing that they are immune from suit in their official capacities. Nevertheless, it is well established that federal officials are not immune when sued in their personal capacities. … His speech, which is directed at reforming government spending, is clearly protected.

Aponte v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 20, 2020

In 2013, the Second Circuit clarified that the Earley decision had, for the purpose of a qualified immunity analysis, “clearly established that where the court has not included PRS in a defendant’s sentence, DOCS may not … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Mem. 16.)

Elliott v. British Tourist Authority

172 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 30, 2001

Second, he was clearly qualified for the position in that he performed it to BTA’s satisfaction for a num *400 ber of years. 2 Third, his termination obviously qualifies as an adverse employment action. … However, that letter also stated quite clearly that “[T]hese opportunities would be based upon you establishing yourself as a company whose services we would be able to access. In speaking to our.

Casaburro v. Giuliani

986 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 1997

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 , 112 S.Ct. at 999 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321 , 106 S.Ct. at 1085 ), Where wantonness is established, a plaintiff may recover even though he did not suffer serious injury. … Accordingly, they are immune from Plaintiffs action for money damages. Mathis v.

Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corp.

917 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 22, 2013

Plaintiff also relies on several cases from other jurisdictions that found a private entity was a state actor, based on facts clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. … City of Chicago, 82 F.Supp.2d 836, 840-41 (N.D.Ill.1999) (finding paramedics employed by municipality qualify as state actors); Eggert v. Tuckerton Vol. Fire Co.

Zangiacomi v. Saunders

714 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 6, 1989

In contrast, when the state’s conflicting rules relate to allocating losses that result from established tortious conduct (rules such as limiting damages in wrongful death actions, vicarious liability rules or immunity from … It has not been clearly established that in fact the work performed is a part or process of the trade or business of Ms. Saunders. The mere fact defendant is an architect and her contract with Mr.

Scott v. Westchester County Jail

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 22, 2020

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. … “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