Goldstein v. New York

Second Circuit

Goldstein v. New York

34 F. App'x 17

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-9017

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 F. App'x 17 (Goldstein v. New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. New York, 34 F. App'x 17 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Sherman Goldstein (“Goldstein”) appeals from the judgment entered by the district court, granting defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss his § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims on the grounds that (1) the claims against New York State were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) Goldstein did not plead any facts supporting a cause of action in his claims against the city. Goldstein v. State of New York, slip op., (S.D.N.Y. August 7, 2001).

The district court was correct to conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977); Dube v. State Univ. Of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594-95 (2d Cir.1990), and correctly ruled no claim was pled against the City or any responsible individual. Goldstein’s principal argument on appeal is that the state of New York is not immune from suit. He is incorrect. The case law Goldstein cites on appeal pertains to claims brought under the Education of the Handicapped Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goldstein has not raised a claim under either of these acts. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

We have considered Goldstein’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

We therefore affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Sherman Goldstein (“Goldstein”) appeals from the judgment entered by the district court, granting defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss his § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims on the grounds that (1) the claims against New York State were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) Goldstein did not plead any facts supporting a cause of action in his claims against the city. Goldstein v. State of New York, slip op., (S.D.N.Y. August 7, 2001).

The district court was correct to conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977); Dube v. State Univ. Of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594-95 (2d Cir.1990), and correctly ruled no claim was pled against the City or any responsible individual. Goldstein’s principal argument on appeal is that the state of New York is not immune from suit. He is incorrect. The case law Goldstein cites on appeal pertains to claims brought under the Education of the Handicapped Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goldstein has not raised a claim under either of these acts. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

We have considered Goldstein’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

We therefore affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. App'x 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-new-york-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack