Case law

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.

Murcia v. County of Orange

226 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 2002

the supervisor liable were clearly established at the time of the violation. … I conclude that Bigger is entitled to qualified immunity in this situation. In essence, plaintiff argues that Bigger cannot acquire qualified immunity by accident.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Blue v. Koren

865 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1994

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity must be addressed first, because if Defendants are immune we do not need to assess Plaintiffs substantive claims. … These three cases are not clearly instructive on the qualified immunity standard to be applied in a retaliation case.

Finch v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2008

This Court held, inter alia, that any right to a prompt administrative hearing was not clearly established, entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. 4 *354 B. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Farid v. Ellen

514 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 2007

Thus, the qualified immunity defense is available, as a matter of law, to all defendants because the right was not clearly established. … All defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Airday v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages when his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A defendant has qualified immunity from a due-process claim when it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation that the purported property or liberty interest of which the plaintiff was deprived

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven 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

Cox v. Village of Pleasantville

271 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2017

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 … As there is no clearly-established law holding that a stop under these or similar circumstances is impermissible, the Court agrees that, Hess is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his Fourth Amendment seizure

Mathis v. Bess

767 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1991

To defeat qualified immunity, the rights that plaintiffs assert were violated must have been clearly established in a “particularized sense.” P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1990). … Under these circumstances, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects the stenographers’ discretion.

Walentas v. Lipper

662 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 17, 1987

Discussion Qualified Immunity of Government Officials Harlow v. … The answer is that it certainly was not clearly established.

Bolden v. Village of Monticello

344 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … As noted above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct

Schubert v. City of Rye

775 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

A government official may be entitled to qualified immunity if either his “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his … “A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Cox v. Fischer

248 F. Supp. 3d 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity “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 … The Court concludes that Officer Murphy is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1.

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nicholas v. Tucker

89 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2000

In consequence, summary judgment the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate. … clearly established constitutional right.); Al-Jundi v.

East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York

809 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1992

clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … But, [e]ven 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

McGarr v. City of Peekskill

975 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2013

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “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 … 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