Case law

Hernandez v. City of Rochester

260 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 30, 2003

clearly established law.” … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). 9 *613 To establish a qualified immunity defense, then, defendants must show either “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or

Vasquez v. Coughlin

726 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 1989

The Second Circuit has clearly articulated the instances when a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … But see Gittens, 720 F.Supp. at 43-44 (immunity granted based on finding that in 1987 the requirement was not clearly established in this Circuit).

Reyes-Herrera v. Flaitz

District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 20, 2020

“An official is therefore entitled to immunity if his action was ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” … Defendants advance two arguments in support of their position that they are entitled to qualified immunity: (1) they did not violate a clearly established right, and (2) they had arguable probable

Cuomo

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 24, 2026

Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 434, 436 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing a defendant’s burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a “formidable hurdle”). … Sept. 17, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds where the defendant “only include[d] the legal standard for establishing qualified immunity and, in a conclusory manner, state[d] that the claims

The Cloister East, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2021

”''® However, “[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 … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined” at such a high level of generality. /d.

Tripathy v. Lockwood

District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2024

Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 536 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim where the right claimed by the plaintiff was not clearly established at … The case law provides that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim as a matter of law.

Zarkower v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · May 21, 2020

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged conduct does not violate a clearly established right. I disagree. … Qualified Immunity “A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established

Ortiz v. Hasper

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 12, 2022

When an official asserts a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established … The difference is that “the qualified immunity inquiry goes on to ask whether any constitutional violation was clearly established.” Jackson v. Tellado, 236 F.

DeNigris v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

861 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Defendant Frisch is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity. … Accordingly, a grant of qualified immunity is wholly inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings. *197 III.

Chimelis v. County of Suffolk

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2025

Qualified Immunity Government actors may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves from liability for civil damages “‘when [their] conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity Police Defendants then assert qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim because they contend that there is no “clearly established law

Allen v. City of New York

480 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2007

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Ryan v. Bell

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 2024

“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 conduct.” … July 2, 2020) (finding corrections officer entitled to qualified immunity because he held an objectively reasonable belief his actions were lawful, particularly in light of that fact that “there is no clearly established

Baron v. Lissade

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2021

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Because there is no clearly established law on this circuit that fabrication of evidence during an administrative bench trial ever violates the Constitution, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Wahad v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

813 F. Supp. 224 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 1993

Lott counters the Bivens , claim by arguing that he is entitled to a qualified immunity defense. … On a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, the Court is to determine the law applicable to the claim, whether it was clearly established at the time of the action, and if Defendant should have known

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

709 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 6, 2010

Thus, qualified immunity is warranted. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Lopez v. Stanford

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2020

While the defense of qualified immunity may be asserted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the complaint itself [must] establish[] the circumstances required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity.” McKenna v. … The Court finds that Plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established under Packingham and that Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

J.E. ex rel. Edwards v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

898 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 2012

Defendants Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that the individual defendants are all protected by the qualified immunity defense. … “The qualified immunity doctrine shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for *559 civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Urena v. Shaw

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2024

the right at issue was clearly established when it was allegedly violated.” … - established step of a court’s] qualified immunity analysis.”

Capogrosso v. Gelbstein

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Eighth, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the State Defendants “fail to articulate the ‘clearly established right’ upon which they base their qualified … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Pritzker v. City of Hudson

26 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that, even if plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[ ].’ ”