Case law

Pugh v. Goord

571 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that qualified immunity shields them from money damages based on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. (State Defs.’ … However, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Phillips v. County of Orange

894 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 11, 2012

Moreover, when a qualified immunity defense is asserted, a court should consider the specific scope and nature of a defendant’s qualified immunity claim. … See, e.g., Stoot, 582 F.3d at 922 (finding that in-school interview of child suspected of abusing another violated Fourth Amendment but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the officer could

Barnes v. Ross

926 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 2013

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs equal protection claim on the basis of qualified immunity is denied, without prejudice to raising the issue of qualified immunity at later stages of the litigation.

Colandrea v. Town of Orangetown

490 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 18, 2007

With respect to qualified immunity, public 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 to believe … established right, or was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Bates v. Bigger

192 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 12, 2002

Qualified Immunity A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We therefore hold that Denehy’s conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, and he is thus entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. 21 Summary judgment

Fierro v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

Bleadon Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The First Amendment retaliation claims are only brought against Bleadon, who asserts a defense of qualified immunity. 106 While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the … .” 107 As usual, the plaintiff is “entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged, not only those that support his claim, but also those that defeat the immunity defense.” 108 Qualified immunity shields public

Davis v. City of New York

373 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 31, 2005

The subsequent question is whether “the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.” Id. … given to judges or prosecutors, but would limit them to qualified immunity.

Baez v. Rapping

680 F. Supp. 112 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 1988

In this case, the defendants, as state prison and medical officials, are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … The official cannot be expected to predict the future course *115 constitutional law, ... but he will not be shielded from liability if he acts “with such disregard of the [individual’s] clearly established constitutional

Reid v. Artus

984 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 1997

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” … Clearly, Artuz’s acts are shielded under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Preston v. New York

223 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2002

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability under § 1983; however, because their immunity is only qualified, their conduct is not always shielded. … If not, the inquiry is over and qualified immunity applies.

Davidson v. Commissioner

589 F. Supp. 158 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 1, 1984

After reviewing the “objective” and “subjective” aspects of the immunity defense traditionally relied on by courts in defining the scope of the qualified immunity defense, the Court went on to observe that insistence on the … We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Santiago v. Semenza

965 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1997

The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Even where *473 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

Diallo v. New York City Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 2025

Williams, 52 F.4th 51, 64 (2d Cir. 2022) (stating that “[a]lthough it is possible for a qualified immunity defense to succeed on a motion to dismiss, . . . … Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Nevertheless, we see no reason why even a traditional qualified immunity defense may not be asserted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as long as

D.K. ex rel. L.K. v. Teams

260 F. Supp. 3d 334 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 5, 2017

Nor, to the extent that the defendants invoke qualified immunity, is qualified immunity available to defendants for such conduct, based on the pleadings. … “Even if the' right at issúe was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of .reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action at

Piccollela v. Rieck

555 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 1982

It is common ground that Assistant District Attorney Rieck is entitled to the defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity. The boundaries of that defense have just been clarified in Harlow v. … Public officials entitled to qualified immunity are now “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Micalizzi v. Ciamarra

206 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 2002

O’Donnell’s statement to Officer Ciamarra is critical to establishing probable cause, and what she said is sharply disputed, Officer Ciamarra is not entitled to summary judgment unless he is entitled to qualified immunity … As discussed above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Vasquez v. Doe(s)

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

clearly established at the time it was taken. … The failure to warn Plaintiff about deployment of the Taser does not preclude qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that a warning is required in these circumstances, and in any event the fight “evolved

Caceres v. International Air Transport Ass'n

46 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1969

Since plaintiffs do not contend that the action qualifies under Rule 23(b) (1) or 23(b) (2) for treatment as a class action, the principal issue is whether it qualifies under Rule 23(b) (3), which provides that a class action … If the antitrust immunity under § 1384 is unavailable, then it would seem that defendants do come within the well established rule of Klor’s Inc. v.

Schwartz v. Dennison

518 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2007

V.Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 10 The first inquiry

Rinaldi v. City of New York

756 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity from § 1983 Liability The standard for qualified immunity from § 1983 liability is the objective reasonableness of the official action challenged in light of clearly established law. See Anderson v. … For these reasons, summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is denied. The issue of qualified immunity is preserved for trial. B.