v. City of New York, No. 09 CV 10604(HB), 2010 WL 4273269 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2010) (at the time of plaintiffs arrest in 2007, “it was objectively reasonable for [defendants to believe that [pjlaintiffs administratively imposed PRS was constitutional”); Rodriguez v. Fischer, No. 08-CV-4662 (SJF)(MLO), 2010 WL 438421, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010) (“Since New York courts were in disagreement regarding the propriety of administratively imposed PRS at the time of Plaintiffs post Earley arrests and confinements, and absent contrary direction, state officials ... are entitled to rely on a presumptively valid state statute, [defendants are entitled to qualified immunity” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100, 107-08 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Rivers v. Fischer, 390 Fed.Appx. 22, 24 (2d
holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established holding that administrative imposition of prs was not clearly established preearley and suggesting that qualified immunity would cover some of the postearley period as well holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right