Case law

United States v. Caruso

684 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1988

VAGUENESS OF COUNT THREE The defendant also moves this court to dismiss Count Three of the indictment on the ground that the time period alleged is too vague to allow the defendant to establish the time during which the possession … The oft criticized doctrine of transactional immunity, indeed, immunizes a witness from prosecution for any criminal conduct that his or her statements to the grand jury implicate. 2 .

Alli v. Sylla

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to defeat a qualified immunity defense must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … violation was clearly established.”

De Luca v. United Nations Organization

841 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 1994

United Nations General Assembly (E.D.N.Y.1987) 664 F.Supp. 69, 71 , 1 A district court may dismiss a complaint based on a defendant’s established immunity. … Coumatos is clearly inapposite as plaintiffs claims challenge actions which defendants have taken in implementing U.N. employment and financial policy.

Hammerhead Enterprises, Inc. v. Brezenoff

551 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1982

In addition to absolute immunity as a public official, defendant also is protected by a qualified common law privilege to communicate with individuals who have an interest in the subject matter. See Clark v. … The common law qualified privilege to communicate can only be overcome by a showing of common law “actual malice”.

Martinez v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025

Defendant is also not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. … As explained above, the facts as alleged in the PSAC state a violation of this clearly established right.

Dixon v. Blackensee

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2020

As such, “qualified immunity shields both state and federal officials from suit unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … So long as preexisting law “clearly foreshadow[s] a particular ruling,” a court will treat it as clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes. Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 84 (2d.

Sulkowska v. City of New York

129 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Qualified Immunity Although plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, Officer Daskalakis may still avoid liability on the ground of qualified immunity. … “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’ for him

Atkins v. County of Orange

372 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity As a general rule, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights; or (2) it was objectively reasonable for … These factual issues preclude summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. 3.

Wolpoff v. Cuomo

792 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 1992

Nonetheless, because the refusal clause’s text, as noted above, does not clearly and explicitly abrogate the states’ eleventh amendment immunity, we are obligated under Pennhurst, Atascadero, and Dellmuth to hold that plaintiffs … immunity, is meritless for the reasons discussed above.

Colonial Bank v. Compagnie Generale Maritime Et Financiere

645 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 15, 1986

CGMF, a legally distinct corporation, wholly owned by the Government of France, clearly fits within the definition set out in § 1603. See, e.g., O’Connell Machinery Co. v. M.V. … "In choosing those words, Congress made clear that the immunity determination under the first clause diverges from the ‘minimum contacts’ due process inquiry....” Maritime International Nominees Establishment v.

Eng v. Coughlin

684 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 18, 1988

First, they assert that their actions are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Second, they *61 assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit against them. … Qualified Immunity In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , qualified or good faith immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant official. Harlow v.

Scales

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 12, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that any claims against the Individual Defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 50Id. at 81.

Preferred Physicians Mutual Risk Retention Group v. Cuomo

865 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1994

Theater Corp., 790 F.2d at 1043 (state agency’s claim of immunity must be considered under the clearly articulated policy standard). … As to these other alleged activities, Noerr-Pennington immunity clearly does not apply.

M & M Transportation Co. v. U. S. Industries, Inc.

416 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 1976

consolidated return *867 for calendar year 1973, which reflected, inter alia, a net operating loss derived solely from plaintiff’s 1973 operations and an unused investment credit attributable solely to plaintiff’s costs of qualified … 1.1502-78(b)] requires the payment of the Refund [claimed by plaintiff] to U.S.I. * * * Contending that “any interpretation of the said regulation which requires payment of the Refund to U.S.I. is unreasonable, does not clearly

D'Angelo-Fenton v. Town of Carmel

470 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 2007

Specifically, the Town Defendants contend that: (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity for their good faith, official actions; (2) plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of *392 law because no criminal … The Newspaper argues that it is immune from suit for defamation pursuant to N.Y. Civ.

Doe v. Delaware State Police

939 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 4, 2013

The DSP is clearly an agency of the state of Delaware, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. (Pis.’ Mem. 8.) … State’s sovereign immunity); Murphy v.

Gjenashaj v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 2020

Qualified immunity shields 14 government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 15 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Lieutenant Harrison argues that because his conduct did not violate a 18 clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified 19 immunity.

Alvarez v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 15, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Likewise, “[b]ecause qualified immunity is an immunity from suit—not merely an immunity from judgment—assertions of qualified immunity should be addressed as early as possible in the judicial process.” Savino v.

Magnaleasing, Inc. v. Staten Island Mall

76 F.R.D. 559 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 28, 1977

Since the relevant portions of the settlement agreement in no way relate to trial tactics or material to be used in the defense of the actions brought by the other tenants, they were not protected by the qualified immunity … It is argued that these provisions of the agreement were drafted “in anticipation of litigation” with those other tenants and should be protected with qualified work-product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3).

Hudson v. County of Dutchess

51 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2014

As such, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs claims on the basis of proximate causation or qualified immunity at this time. … immunity,” (Miaño and Mergen-dahl’s Mem. 8), could be construed as encompassing a claim that Trooper Miaño is entitled to qualified immunity for wrongfully signing informations charging Plaintiff with crimes, the Court notes