Case law

Novak

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 2, 2026

Qualified immunity, however, is limited: it only shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … of a constitutional nght, and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the challeage:d conduct.

Camacho v. Brandon

56 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity Claim for All Defendants For the reasons explained, supra, each of the defendant’s qualified immunity claims must fail. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government *378 officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Gray v. Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of the Congo to the United Nations

443 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 18, 1978

As to the third factor, it should be noted that the Immunities Act requires that the foreign state be notified of the default according to the procedures established for the service of process. … It must be noted that the Immunities Act does establish an exception to the general principle of sovereign immunity for a foreign state for cases “in which rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in

Hollenbeck v. Boivert

330 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for dismissal under the theory of qualified immunity. … “A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to immunity from § 1983 suits if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Calderon v. City of New York

138 F. Supp. 3d 593 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 5, 2015

Kuntz; 918 F.2d 364, 368 (2d Cir.1990) (applying Franks standard to issues of qualified immunity in § 1983: action). … Defendants also raise a qualified immunity defense, under which, "[a]s government officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants enjoy a qualified immunity that shields them from personal liability for . damages

S & S MACHINERY CO. v. Masinexportimport

802 F. Supp. 1109 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 8, 1992

Moreover, the legislative history of. the FSIA states clearly that § 1610(a)(4)(B)’s specific exemption of consular missions “applies to all of the situations encompassed by sections 1610(a) and (b).” -1976 U.S. . … "The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.” 5 .

United States v. Kurzer

422 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 11, 1976

Steinman clearly understood the seriousness of the tax fraud indictment of March, 1973. … derive directly or indirectly from his immunized testimony.

Lehner v. O'ROURKE

339 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 1971

New York courts to mean that upon recanvass, the Board of Elections may correct only an incorrect tally of votes; it cannot look behind votes cast on a voting machine to determine whether the persons who cast them were qualified … Thus, while plaintiff clearly has a state remedy to contest the absentee and military ballots which allegedly were not returned by the board of inspectors ( N.Y.

Capasso v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

198 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants move to dismiss the individual liability claim against O’Donnell on the ground that he is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983. For the following reasons, we agree. … ] legally] reasonable[] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities & Derivative Litigation

986 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 12, 2013

It is also under this criterion that Defendants’ motion most clearly falters. … As discussed, that established law has not been applied to a unique set of facts does not create an issue of first impression; if it did, virtually any case might qualify.

Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc.

411 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 26, 2006

Not only that, but this Court has, in other contexts, made clear that allegations of bad faith, malice, and even fraud—all of which may be relevant to a qualified immunity analysis— cannot, except in the most unusual of circumstances … , overcome absolute immunity.

Peragine v. Maimone

504 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 1980

Therefore, both plaintiff’s section 1983 and plaintiff’s section 1985(3) claims are obviously frivolous and do not establish subject matter jurisdiction under section 1343(3). … These two defendants clearly enjoy absolute judicial immunity for their actions as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.

Glenview Construction, Inc. v. Bucci

165 F. Supp. 2d 545 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2001

[] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ … Therefore, we cannot decide as a matter of law that the individual Board members are entitled to qualified immunity, see Weyant v.

Weininger v. Castro

462 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 17, 2006

See 462 U.S. at 626-27 , 103 S.Ct. 2591 . 20 The rationale for this principle is that [t]he language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not intended to affect the substantive law determining the liability … TRIA clearly provides that “in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim ... for which a terrorist party is not immune under 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(7), the blocked assets of that

Orkin v. Swiss Confederation

770 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 11, 2011

those terms are used in the FSIA. 23 On those assumptions, the FSIA, which “codifies several exceptions to the long-established doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity,” 24 is the only possible source of subject matter jurisdiction … Plaintiff contends that the claims come within the “takings” exception to foreign sovereign immunity articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(8). 25 “To establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ‘takings’ exception

Schoolcraft v. City of New York

103 F. Supp. 3d 465 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity will attach to an officer’s decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As discussed above, qualified immunity attaches to “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kerman, 261 F.3d at 236 .

Alcantara v. City of New York

646 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 23, 2009

immunity. … “While the right to be free from malicious prosecution is a clearly established right, defendants may nevertheless enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate

Hanig v. Yorktown Central School District

384 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 2, 2005

For example, Lanza clearly indicates that education is a state function. … The Amended Complaint clearly states that plaintiffs employment with the School Dis *725 trict ended on June 30, 2003. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Edwards v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2019

Legal Standard  Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “so long as their conduct does not violate  clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a  … But  since the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the right asserted was clearly established at the time of  inmate’s spitting in the marshal’s face.  Jordan v. Sheehy, 559 F. App’x 77 (2d Cir. 2014).  

Thomson v. Eastern Bechtel Corp.

24 F.R.D. 41 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 1959

The facts summarized and found as above are clearly sufficient to make Eastern Bechtel Corporation amenable to service of process in this jurisdiction, where suit is brought in a Federal Court, at least so long as the cause … In that case a foreign corporation, whose sole business was the maintenance of a hotel in Florida, was held immune from service of process in this District despite the fact that it continuously, regularly and substantially