Case law

Quitoriano v. RAFF & BECKER, LLP.

675 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 29, 2009

Such activities clearly require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, which Raff, as an attorney who has supervised the system since its inception, is qualified to perform. Cf. … Moreover, although plaintiff does allege that the Firm oversees the Voluntary Referral Hall, that fact, even if true, does not establish an employment relationship.

Morris v. Eversley

282 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 2003

Qualifíed Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights … Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Heller v. Bedford Central School District

144 F. Supp. 3d 596 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 17, 2015

As discussed above, “[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 … At the very least, in the absence of any precedent, clearly established or otherwise, providing for a Second Amendment claim under these circumstances, Chief Ryan is entitled to qualified immunity, Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231

Abdus-Samad v. Greiner

158 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 2001

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects Government officials from suits against them for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Where a right is clearly established, “the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the established

Diop v. City of New York

50 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

The Court holds that, while the defendants have not established that Mr. Diop’s arrest and prosecution were supported by probable cause, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “[A]n arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity on claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution if either: (a) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause

Alston v. Howard

925 F. Supp. 1034 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 1996

defendants are, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that is objectively reasonable and “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Sacco v. Pataki

114 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2000

Harlow establishes a two part test for qualified immunity. First, a court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time the defendant acted^ As the Court explained in Mitchell v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

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.

Bullard v. City of New York

240 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 20, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … 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

United States Ex Rel. Casanova v. Fitzpatrick

214 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 1963

It would simply qualify them as eligible for inclusion on the list. … Following the effective date of the Headquarters Agreement, a procedure was established to implement the required tri-partite consent under section 15(2) with respect to those qualified thereunder.

United States v. Lumumba

578 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 17, 1983

Lumumba has not sought diplomatic immunity under the Treaty nor would it be possible for him to qualify for such immunity. … Article 31 establishes that: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state.”

Scott v. Coughlin

78 F. Supp. 2d 299 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2000

Since Albury did not violate Scott’s clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. The same conclusion holds true for. Novak, Howe, and LaBonte. … As discussed above, Novak and Howe are both entitled to qualified immunity because neither violated Scott's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. See Supra at 313-15.

Biswas v. City of New York

973 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2013

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 … New York common law provides for analogous qualified immunity.

Saar v. United States Department of Justice

705 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 7, 1989

violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In addition, defendants Lansing and May correctly assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon

707 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2010

Plaintiffs Equal Protection Claim against Defendant Davis also fails because Defendant Davis is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Lewis v. Sobol

710 F. Supp. 506 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 13, 1989

Second, Yonkers asserts qualified immunity from money damages, arguing that its actions were reasonable based on legal rules clearly established at the time those actions were taken. See Harlow v. … Qualified immunity, however, does not apply to officials in their official capacities or to school districts. Owen v.

Johnson v. Coombe

156 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2001

(b) Qualified Immunity Prison officials who participate in disciplinary proceedings are protected by qualified immunity, 25 which shields state officials from liability when they do not violate clearly established statutory … at the time of the hearing and a reasonable person should have known of the right, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Riedinger v. D'AMICANTINO

974 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 19, 1997

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields defendant officials in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When the law is clearly established, a defendant cannot claim qualified immunity, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Gomez v. Kaplan

964 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1997

The decisive question on the qualified immunity issue, as it is in all such eases involving the qualified immunity of public officials, is the state of the law at the time of defendants’ conduct. … “Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Correctional Services

699 F. Supp. 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 1988

The defense 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 … Therefore, the doctrine of qualified immunity bars plaintiff’s claims.