945, 967 (9th Cir.2010). “[I]n the absence of binding precedent,” this Court “ *look[s] to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes, ‘including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and district courts.’ ” Boyd v. Benton Cnty., 374 F.3d 773, 781 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.2003)). “[A] case directly on point” is not required, “but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2083. Moreover, state court decisions are particularly significant if the underlying constitutional question is determined by reference to state law. See Prue v. City of Syracuse, 26 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); 2 Sheldon H. Nahmod, Civil Rights & Civil
holding that certification is appropriate if the new york court of appeals has not squarely addressed an issue and other decisions by new york courts are insufficient to predict how the court of appeals would resolve it internal quotation marks omitted holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established holding that a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest  was not clearly established by analyzing new york court of appeals decisions even with a binding federal decision on point citing economico v village of pelham 50 ny2d 120 428 nys2d 213 405 ne2d 694 1980 prue v hunt 78 ny2d 364 575 nys2d 806 581 ne2d 1052 1991 holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts holding state education department not a party to title vii action against new york city school board based on specific supervisory powers by state education department absent direct control over daytoday operations of school board and citing paynter v new york 100 ny2d 434 765 nys2d 819 797 ne2d 1225 1229 2003