Case law

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

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.

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

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.

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.

Aiken v. Nixon

236 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2002

Qualified Immunity — General Qualified immunity is available only to defendants in their individual capacities and only on that much of the claims seeking monetary damages. Lewis v. … The Court concludes that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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.

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

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.

Milfort v. Prevete

3 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 14, 2014

Qualified immunity applies when a government actor’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiffs … However, because sufficient material facts have been established, the Court will recount the factors compelling its conclusion that Prevete was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hendricks v. Mallozzi

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 24, 2023

In the alternative, Defendant Delutis argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … the program, and (3) Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Switzer

900 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 4, 1995

Accordingly, in order to establish the defense of qualified immunity, an official “must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which a reasonable person would have … Absent a violation of a “clearly established” right, an official is entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. See, e.g., Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

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.

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.

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

Brooks v. Berg

270 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the