Opinion ID: 703164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Summary Judgment to Kramer and Witkowsky.

Text: 30 Even if all facts are resolved in favor of Komlosi, Kramer and Witkowsky's delay in reinstating Komlosi after the criminal charges were dismissed does not implicate a clearly established right, especially in view of the fact that Komlosi was ultimately provided back pay for this period of delay. See Weg v. Macchiarola, 729 F.Supp. 328, 337 (S.D.N.Y.1990). Whether qualified immunity exists in a given context depends upon whether an official's actions were objectively reasonable under the legal rules prevailing at the time the actions were taken. Dobosz v. Walsh, 892 F.2d 1135, 1140 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). It cannot be said that in light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [of Kramer and Witkowsky's conduct was] apparent. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. Indeed, Komlosi has not cited any case demonstrating that their conduct constituted a deprivation of a clearly established right. We therefore conclude that defendants Kramer and Witkowsky should have been granted summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity. 31