discussed Cited "see" Cavanaugh v. Doherty In order for the burden to shift to the plaintiff to disprove qualified immunity, the public official must prove that the conduct complained of falls within the scope of his or her official duties (see, Rich v Dollar, 841 F2d 1558, 1563-1564; Zeigler v Jackson, 716 F2d 847, 849; see generally, Butz v Economou, supra, at 495) and, further, that the alleged conduct did not violate one of the plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights (see, Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102 ).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. Fishbein And although the Committee’s determinations may, to an extent, be reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding, “in the context of determining whether absolute immunity is appropriate[ ] Article 78 proceedings are generally not considered adequate avenues for ‘appeal.’ ” DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d at 299 ; see, e.g., Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. Fishbein And although the Committee's determinations may, to an extent, be reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding, "in the context of determining whether absolute immunity is appropriate[ ] Article 78 proceedings are generally not considered adequate avenues for `appeal.'" DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d at 299 ; see, e.g., Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1102 , 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995). 70 Given the unavailability of an adequate avenue for judicial review, along with the lack of any requirement for a formal hearing, and the Committee's claimed unfette…