Case law

Barboza v. D'Agata

151 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2015

In this Circuit, even if the right was clearly established, an.officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively. reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful, Gonzalez v. … That’s the first prong of the qualified immunity test. *371 I also find that plaintiffs right not to be arrested for the expression at issue was clearly established.

Hancock v. Cnty. of Rensselaer

337 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 29, 2018

Individual Defendants' Claims to Qualified Immunity Government employees are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages liability so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate "clearly established … Because the constitutional rights upon which Plaintiffs rely were not clearly established at the time Defendants acted, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Carter v. Broome County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 21, 2019

Supp. 3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "broader right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and applying it to pre-trial detainee). … True or not, qualified immunity would not attach to those facts.

Braithwaite v. Tropea

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 27, 2023

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider “whether the facts shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was clearly established … The United State Supreme Court has long extended qualified immunity to court reporters, such as Conner, where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Pendleton v. Goord

849 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Defendants argue that the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley did not clearly establish, for the purposes of qualified immunity, that the administrative imposition of a period of PRS violated a constitutional right.

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

Williams v. Goord

142 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Even if the applicable law was clearly established when the purported violation occurred, officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is therefore only appropriate if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed

Vincent v. Yelich

812 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2011

The defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, they are entitled to qualified immunity. *282 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons

Burns v. Citarella

443 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 18, 2006

Qualified Immunity: Merits The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 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

Root v. Loucks

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 2021

Supp. 3d 636, 664-65 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (arresting officer not entitled to qualified immunity despite officer’s testimony he merely gave arrestee a “bear hug” in light of plaintiff’s testimony that he was placed in a chokehold … Ohio 2004) (stating that an officer who “flipped [plaintiff] to the ground and choked him two times, the second time while [plaintiff] was not resisting . . . violat[ed] . . . clearly established law”).

Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department

897 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2012

that preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. 1. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Smith v. Coughlin

727 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 1989

The remainder of this case must nevertheless be disposed of on qualified immunity grounds. 7 State officials are immune from suits for damages 8 alleging constitutional violations if it was not clearly established at the … The court further held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officials had not violated clearly established law, citing three reasons: (1) the defendant prison officials could reasonably have

Kravitz v. Police Department of the Hudson

285 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The defendant must establish that he [or she] had an objectively reasonable belief that his [or her] act violated no clearly established rights [citation omitted]” (Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102

McKay v. City of New York

32 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Law is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “various courts have agreed that certain conduct is a constitutional violation under facts not distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the

Deskovic v. City of Peekskill

894 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2012

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

Pinter v. City of New York

710 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2010

Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. … Pinter’s Right Was Clearly Established “For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently

Akinnagbe v. City of New York

128 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available if an officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.” … is no clearly established right being violated.