You are here: / / TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 198...
,

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant members of a town board were absolutely immune from a lawsuit stemming from their legislative activities:

… [T]he defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants who are members of the Town Board … based on the principle of absolute immunity. Local legislators are “absolutely immune from suit under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for their legislative activities” … , and such immunity is applicable to all actions within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity” … . The allegations asserted in the complaint against the Town Board defendants are based on actions that were legislative and within the sphere of legislative activity. Therefore, the Town Board defendants are entitled to absolute immunity … .

The defendants are also entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Robert W. Fitzsimmons, an official with the Town … building department. 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” … . Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity … . 24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v Cannella, 2016 NY Slip Op 03499, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983)/IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983)/ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983)/QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983)/42 USC 1983 (TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983)

You might also like
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL-CONTRACT ACTION WHERE ORIGINAL ACTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A WRITTEN CONTRACT.
Criteria for Motion to Amend a Complaint and for the “Relation Back” Doctrine Explained
NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know Cause of Fall
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST HER AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO-FAULT CARRIER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LETTERS TO DEFENDANT SCHEDULING AN EXAMINATION... DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY...