Case law

Fox v. Doran

974 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1997

Qualified Immunity In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Even when a plaintiff’s federal rights are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified immunity might still be available as a bar to a plaintiff’s

Wagner v. Swarts

827 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 2011

Determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity requires an answer to the following questions: (1) was a constitutionally protected right violated; and if so, (2) was that right “clearly established … Accordingly, an official is shielded by qualified immunity if his conduct either did not infringe on a “clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe his conduct did not

Russell v. Coughlin

774 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 1991

immunity applies because rule not clearly established in this circuit or by decisions of Supreme Court). … Given that the right to an independent assessment of the credibility of confidential informants was clearly established at the time of Hearing I, Captain Wright is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his

Gittens v. Sullivan

720 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 1989

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability as long as their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … The explicit requirements of Wolff are clearly established constitutional rights.

Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District

3 A.D.3d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2004

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does *671 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be entitled to qualified immunity, Seals was required to establish that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of reasonable competence

Zappala v. Albicelli

954 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 1997

The qualified immunity standard requires a two-prong inquiry. The first prong inquires whether the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established at the time the Defendants acted. … Clearly Established Prong The purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test is to ask whether the Defendant official should have been on notice that his conduct could implicate a “clearly established” constitutional

Fleming v. Sharma

605 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant acting in the course of his official duties is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pabon v.

Hirschfeld v. Spanakos

909 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1995

And while a reasonable defendant would have understood from existing law that the alleged acts were tortious under State law, the right that must be clearly established to defeat qualified immunity in a Section 1983 case … capacity suits than the federal doctrine of qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Tellado

236 F. Supp. 3d 636 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2017

was clearly established. … of force that violated clearly established law. b)Defendant Braumann The Court also denies qualified immunity to Defendant Braumann.

Madden v. Town of Greene

36 Misc. 3d 852 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

between various acts afforded absolute and qualified immunity. … In this case, the Appellate Division held that defendant “did not establish its entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law for its highway planning decisions with regard to the original design and placement of the

Seitz v. DeQuarto

777 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established that the state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment extends to individuals acting in their roles as agents of the government. … Individual state employees may claim 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.

Hernandez v. Goord

312 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2004

Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 suits if either: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for

Strauch v. Demskie

892 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 1995

Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity is necessary to enable government officials to act without fear of later being held personally liable for violating a right that was not clearly established.

Hill v. Selsky

487 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 7, 2007

To establish qualified immunity, a defendant must show “either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not … Oct. 20, 2006) (“an officer’s violation of clearly established state law is not enough to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit.

ESTATE OF ROSENBAUM BY PLOTKIN v. City of New York

975 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 1997

Was this Right Clearly Established? … This “clearly established” linchpin for determining the applicability of the qualified immunity defense transcends the viability of the § 1983 claim. See Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640 , 100 S.Ct. at 1923-1924 .

Harewood v. Braithwaite

64 F. Supp. 3d 384 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2014

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finding a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond de *400 bate.”

Covell Ex Rel. Johnson v. County of Oswego

165 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 5, 2001

of the qualified immunity standard. … established prong” of the qualified immunity standard.

V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad

581 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2008

The claim of qualified immunity on all federal claims Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the case were limited to these facts, the City defendants would seem to have a strong case for qualified immunity under the clearly established and clearly deferential standard of the Second Circuit.

Lumpkin v. Brehm

230 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2017

And “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity ... if he can establish that he had ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest the plaintiff,” which requires the officer to demonstrate “either (a) it was objectively reasonable … And because Defendants have raised qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they must demonstrate that facts establishing arguable probable cause are “clear from the face of the [SAC].” Rahman v.

Lonegan v. Hasty

436 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2006

Accordingly, Hasty’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. 5 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Qualiñed Immunity To determine whether Hasty is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, the court must now consider whether plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time