Yang v. New York City Transit

Second Circuit

Yang v. New York City Transit

21 F. App'x 60

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 2001

DocketNo. 01-7117

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F. App'x 60 (Yang v. New York City Transit) 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

Yang v. New York City Transit, 21 F. App'x 60 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was submitted by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendant.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Block’s Memorandum and Order dated January 16, 2001. Neither the complaint nor the amended complaint alleged that plaintiff himself had suffered or was about to suffer injury in fact, which was necessary for plaintiff to have standing to challenge the regulation in question, see, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Plaintiff’s contention that he may maintain the present action in the absence of actual or imminent injury in fact to himself (see plaintiffs Affirmation of Opposing the Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss the Complain[t], dated August 15, 2000, ¶ 2(j) (because no demand is made for money damages, “the Plaintiff is not necessary [to] stay [sic ] any injury in this action”)) is erroneous. See generally Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Lee v. Board of Governors, 118 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir.1997).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found [61]*61them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was submitted by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendant.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Block’s Memorandum and Order dated January 16, 2001. Neither the complaint nor the amended complaint alleged that plaintiff himself had suffered or was about to suffer injury in fact, which was necessary for plaintiff to have standing to challenge the regulation in question, see, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Plaintiff’s contention that he may maintain the present action in the absence of actual or imminent injury in fact to himself (see plaintiffs Affirmation of Opposing the Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss the Complain[t], dated August 15, 2000, ¶ 2(j) (because no demand is made for money damages, “the Plaintiff is not necessary [to] stay [sic ] any injury in this action”)) is erroneous. See generally Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Lee v. Board of Governors, 118 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir.1997).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found [61]*61them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. App'x 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yang-v-new-york-city-transit-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack