Case law

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

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

Taylor v. City of New York

269 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 23, 2003

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first “allege a violation of a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … Since plaintiff has plainly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Curry 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.

Rivera v. Fischer

655 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity The moving defendants also argue, in the alternative, that plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory

Lewis v. City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Dept.

984 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity entitles police officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The requirement of a clearly established right means that the inquiry to ascertain whether qualified immunity is available differs from the inquiry into whether the Fourth Amendment may have been violated.

Simon v. City of New York

819 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 7, 2011

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. The Prosecutor’s Actions In Imbler v. … It is beyond dispute that individuals are protected by qualified immunity so long as “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) [it] was objectively reasonable for them to believe

Getlin v. Zoll

707 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

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 of which … “Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ or if it is

Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services

907 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 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 … Cuomo, 465 Fed.Appx. 42, 45 (2d Cir.2012) (defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “neither clearly established principles of double jeopardy nor due process prohibited defendants from administratively imposing

24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

Pettus v. McGinnis

533 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … immunity was limited to whether right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident, and concluding that it was not).

Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Doe v. Marsh

918 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

Finally, the court notes that qualified immunity protection turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ ” of the allegedly unlawful official action “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Accordingly, in this case the court cannot grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity predicated upon the lack of a clearly established constitutionally protected right.

Reed v. Sheppard

321 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 17, 2018

qualified immunity because, following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Samson , supra , it is not clearly established that some particularized suspicion is required before searching a parolee or his residence. … Because "[i]t is unclear whether the Second Circuit's decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Samson ," "the right is not 'clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Id.

Negron v. City of New York

976 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 2013

An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if … Whether the Constitutional Right Violated Was Clearly Established Even if their actions are found to have constituted unreasonable or excessive force, Marchesona and Pigott would still be entitled to qualified immunity if

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.

Gelatt v. County of Broome, NY

811 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1993

Qualified immunity, on the other hand, shields the official from civil liability when, in performing a discretionary function, his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

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.