Case law

Fernandez v. CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE, NY

67 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 7, 1999

Plaintiffs’ complaints to the PBA and their effort to secure the PBA’s assistance in pursuing legal redress of their grievances against the City is conduct clearly protected by the First Amendment. … In addition, in the absence of any appropriate factual predicate, it is premature to determine whether individual defendant Collette LaFuente is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ste. Marie v. Eastern Railroad Ass'n

72 F.R.D. 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1976

Given these numbers, the test of numerosity is clearly met. Korn v. Franchard Corp., 456 F.2d 1206, 1209 (2d Cir. 1972); Local 246, Utility Workers Union of Am. v. Southern Cal. … Defendants cannot immunize hiring policies from class action attack by creating an appearance of divided responsibility.

Miller v. Annucci

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Fischer may create clearly established law that ‘counts’ for qualified immunity ‘clearly established law’ purposes, [the Court is] left with the fact that the one helpful statement for [P]laintiff[] from Mills v.

Barrer-Cohen v. Greenburgh Central School District

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 2019

In determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, courts consider “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violations of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established … Superintendent Chase, however, is not entitled to qualified immunity based on Plaintiff’s allegations.

Spencer v. Sullivan County Sheriff Department

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

Because it is not clearly established that suspicionless visual body cavity searches of detainees arrested for felony drug offenses violate the Fourth Amendment, Starner is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … with the qualified immunity reasonableness inquiry.”

Henry v. Coughlin

940 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 1996

Defendants also maintain that the Eleventh Amendment bars this action and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. In response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint. … This claim is clearly without merit.

Sharon v. Time, Inc.

599 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 12, 1984

Time’s Claim of Absolute Immunity Time argues that the press should enjoy absolute immunity from suit for statements about the official conduct of high government officers; and it claims that this blanket immunity applies … Although the shield law is broad, however, it does not establish an “absolute right” or grant journalists “complete immunity from all legal consequences.” Id. at 165, 464 N.E.2d at 272 , 476 N.Y.S.2d at 970.

A.I. Credit Corp. v. Government of Jamaica

666 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

Under New York law, “evidence of industry practice may not be used to vary the terms of a contract that clearly sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties.” Croce v. … Jamaica also "irrevocably waive[d] ... immunity in respect of its obligations under [the] Agreement-” Id. § 12.07(d). 2 .

Martinez v. D'Agata et, al

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 18, 2019

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. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Hertz Corp. v. City of New York

212 F. Supp. 2d 275 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 2002

It provides: No rental vehicle company shall refuse to rent a motor vehicle to any person otherwise qualified based on that person’s residence, nor impose fees or charges based on that person’s residence. … In its opinion, the Second Circuit stated that the City’s actions had not been carried out pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy and, therefore, Local Law No. 21 was not protected by state-action immunity from antitrust

Irving Trust Co. v. Bank of India

561 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 1983

This cross-claim clearly arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action; indeed, it virtually restates one of BI’s defenses to the complaint — that payment was justified because … It is well-established that sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded. See Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, supra, 647 F.2d at 326 n. 20, and the sources cited therein.

Clinton v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · May 9, 2025

, determine that the Officers are protected by qualified immunity. … As such, the individual defendants did not violate any clearly established law, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. . . . [And] there was at least ‘arguable probable cause.’

Airday v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 2022

A defendant is shielded by qualified immunity either when his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or when it was objectively reasonable to believe that his conduct … did not violate clearly established rights.

Schroedel v. New York University Medical Center

885 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 1995

The Court concludes, however, that Naiman suffers from the same inability to establish an injury in fact necessary to assert a claim for injunctive relief as does Schroedel. … Moreover, contrary to Schroedel's contention, the remaining portion of section 36.501(a) pertains to new construction and alterations to public accommodations and clearly does not apply to the case at bar. 9 .

United States v. Richard Dattner Architects

972 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 9, 1997

First, he alleges an “action in tort for refusing to hire a fully qualified U.S. worker in favour of a foreign worker, using a fraudulently obtained certification ‘that qualified persons in the U.S. are not available,’ in … violation of a clearly mandated public policy (20 C.F.R. s 655.0), which is important and involves a singularly public purpose.”

Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. v. United States

172 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 5, 2001

With respect to plaintiffs’ qui tam claim under the FCA, at the time of filing there existed clear, long-standing precedent establishing that the Government cannot be sued unless it has waived its sovereign immunity. … Counsel’s inclusion of the non-Government defendants in this action, specifically CACI, was also clearly improper.

Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Universal Relay Corp.

285 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 4, 1968

Any further claims made for the relays must be clearly stated to emanate from Universal and not Cutler. Plaintiff will post a $5,000 bond. … Universal has not attempted to qualify the relays under the current military standards.

Zients v. LaMorte

319 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1970

. * * * ” The basic guidelines are established by the following provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations: 17 C.F.R. § 203.2 , which provides: “Information or documents obtained by the Commission in the course of any … Though the statute clearly stated that this information should not be used while in .the hands of the government officials, there was no immunity from legal process of the copies of the report not in the hands of the Census

Rader v. Northwest Exterminating Co.

120 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 1954

Subsection (c) of the Act repeats the requirement for restoration without loss of seniority and gives the additional benefit of immunity from discharge without cause for one year after restoration. … Plaintiff therefore clearly has a right to sue for money damages sustained as a result of defendant’s alleged wrongful failure to restore him to proper seniority status. See Feore v.

United States Fire Insurance v. China Union Lines Ltd.

375 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 1973

’s verdict, but it also clearly stated that if the trier of fact was left uncertain, the shipper had not met his burden. … Plaintiff has conceded that “[t]he evidence did not establish the cause of the vessel’s stranding.” [Findings of Fact Proposed by Plaintiff, Number 11.]