Case law

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

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

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Transit Authority

810 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1993

“The right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been *568 clearly established.” Calamia v. New York, 879 F.2d 1025, 1036 (2d Cir.1989). … Defendants must be objectively unreasonable in believing their acts do not violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights for plaintiffs Count Four to escape summary judgment by the defense of qualified immunity

Ferreira v. Westchester County

917 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1996

Immunity Defense Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right — to be protected from warrantless searches absent probable cause — was clearly established.

Engblom v. Carey

572 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … established” at the time of the events in question and therefore that the defendants are protected by a qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment.

DePace v. Flaherty

183 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

Creighton, to say that the contours of a right must be clearly established “is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” 31 … Flaherty still would be entitled to qualified immunity, despite the fact that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate DePace

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Moye v. Selsky

826 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity The standards for invoking the qualified immunity defense in the Second Circuit are well established. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Weg v.

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

796 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated” in light of clearly established law____ [T]he dismissal of a claim against an officer asserting qualified immunity in no way logically entails … They can do so by establishing a good faith, qualified immunity defense. This good faith defense is not available to the municipality.

Betances v. Fischer

144 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Qualified Immunity This Court has previously held that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 63 Defendants had argued that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time those rights

Langley v. Coughlin

709 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, depends upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time. … established at the time, and consequently, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim of qualified immunity.

Harris v. Lord

957 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because their actions did not contravene clearly established … Even where such constitutional rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his acts did not violate those rights. Id.

Perez v. County of Westchester

83 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages stemming from their performance of discretionary official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Indeed, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

DiPace v. Goord

308 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2004

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the proposed defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to adequate medical care for serious medical needs was clearly established and no reasonable jury … Second, even where such a constitutional right has been violated, the government employee is entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

Usavage v. Port Authority

932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

Roniger v. McCall

22 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 1998

of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liabili *162 ty for civil damages if they establish that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In determining the availability of a qualified immunity defense, the rights alleged to have been violated must be identified, and a determination as to whether they were “clearly established” must be - made!

Joyner v. Greiner

195 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2002

POINT III DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suits arising from performance of their discretionary functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly … Whether an offi *508 cial may invoke qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” when the action was

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits