evidence outside the complaint in determining whether the bad faith exception to younger is applicable in this case and deciding this issue a court is necessarily required to make factual findings as to the motive and intent of the state actors it is impossible to make such findings without considering evidence outside the complaint there is no support whatsoever for the proposition that issues must be decided based soley on the allegations in the complaint the cases cited in our papers in fact show that evidentiary hearings or often require to determine such issues try to make some arrangement for but there's again just no assurance that the investigation would have been terminated if records were produced and in fact the investigation was continue for over six years  nothing but was never tested because the records weren't produced well apparently but they should have been i mean you know the theory i don't know that that's really the statute doesn't provide for a hearing because it's self evident and say that their records have been destroyed or something i mean you make a there should be something in the record on but there was nothing there was no further proceedings after that that there was room was issued the dealer took no action on this investigation they kept the investigation open for on the issue the issue there that been resolved that issue what the issue there is did this tell me if it's been resolved is that two hundred fifty thousand ultimately been repaid to ted poe or was it withheld with really was it was it was  issue is whether just extraordinary seven year delay in holding a hearing on these allegations of misconduct that occurred back in two thousand and six two thousand and seven violated due process and what's what's important my question my question  was the two hundred fifty three thousand dollars ever returned to ted and if not are you suing for damages if it was are you suing for the loss fact that you lost the money during the delay period or or these here stating that the commission of labor has adopted a report and recommendation which found that your clients committed prevailing wage violations on the stand  may please the court suffer kosky of the state defendants ted cohen frank de martino underpaid their workers in violation of new york labor law by failing to pay the prevailing wage as authorized by the labor law excuse me project are you talking the staten island project your honor and that actually was going to be the very first point that i was going to begin with which is that in order to understand the constitutional claims that have been brought here it's very important to disentangle the two projects that are that appear in the complain and the various withholdings that are related to those projects mr ha began by talking about the records withholding with respect to the queen's project however it's very clear that the constitutional claims with respect to that withholding bill at the outset because as required by new york labor law every contractor in this in the circumstances required to keep these records and is required to turn them over upon request in this case there was a legitimate request for those records and the records were request that's right there's that's a nonstarter so so at as far as the two thousand and seven records withholding that there are simply no constitutional claims fillip the outset with respect that what was the amount of the queen that was in queens right that was in queens yes your honor how much was was withheld there i believe i believe that originally there was a one hundred thousand dollar withholding that was issued and then that was recalled based on a recalculation and it was then reissued for i think sixty two thousand dollars i think is my understanding that was the records withholding amount oh ok so that's with respect to the two thousand and seven withholding then eventually across but holding was then issued on the on the queen's project to compensate then force for reasonably suspected violations with respect to the staten island project a stand that but there was no no suspected violations of the wage problem  underpaying the wages for screens is concerned just trying to sort out the facts here as far as i was far as queens was concerned when when the department of labor issues a records request that's based on at least some indication that a prevailing wage violation may have occurred but i understand that but there was no notice we're withholding x amount because of a prevailing wage violation where withholding x amount because you haven't turned over the records this is what it was that's that's right and then there was a two hundred fifty three thousand withholding for the staten island project that's so that's with respect to the direct withholding on the staten island project those are funds that are withheld on the staten island project with respect to violation on the staten island right and then there later on was a withholding in queens or cost withholding greens of eighty thousand words or it's i think it's approximately eighty thousand i don't have the exact amount that nyland probably that's right so it's across withholding for funds that had yet  may have not yet been paid on the queen's project to compensate for potential prevailing wage violations on the staten island plot and now he's saying that all of this was done to harass his client and retaliate for the lawsuits that had been rigidly brought tag and what is your response well there are a number of different is that's it that's the whole that's the whole that's the whole issue i mean there were this  over a long period of time and you know these withholdings were you know well after the project was over i suppose you know just to perhaps make your argument there several responses to that your honor the first thing i would note is that the administration proceedings have now concluded their findings of fact in those proceedings those were submitted as a twenty eight j letter and in those findings of fact that documents how there were actually worker complaints that that's with regard to that to the court you know the various things that led up to the withholdings in twenty twenty ten and i'm getting them mixed up now to twenty ten twenty thirteen that's also in the appendix but what we would say our answer to  that your honour's several fold the first is that there's just simply nothing actually in the complaint that suggests that there was a kit that there was any kind of collusive agreement between the in the department of labor and the only allegations in the complaint that make out are about a legitimate funding agreement pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies any attempt to inject some sort of bad faith into that realize it presumes that there was a baseless investigation that was being pursued in this case we just simply know that's not the case you're out of there the proceedings went all the way through the administrative process there was a finding of fact it's been submitted with respect to a twenty eight day letter and as far as we are aware there has not been a challenge to those findings  exactly right your honor there's there are still claims with respect to the damages claims in the complaint for sure and we make several different arguments there there are multiple reasons that those claims fail first is that there is no cognizable property interest in those as we set forth in great detail in the briefs but even if there were it's still our position that there was adequate process that both the ability for tag to bring in article seventy receiving in state court and even in circumstances depending on the for all these reasons unless the court has any further questions we would simply rest on the briefs and ask this court to affirm thank you their constitutional rights plaintiffs don't even allege that destiny asks dio l to investigate the staten island project that was the subject of the wage withholding nor could they since as the eviden response to their motion practice showed and the hearing officer found that investigation was prompted by documented worker complaints by two workers a situation where under the labor law deal is mandated by statute to open an investigation that does the reporter's suspected way gyal ations for the queen's project did not interfere with any constitutionally protected interest and indeed is exactly what public entities are supposed to do where wage violations are suspected and as your honor pointed out the only withholding with respect to the queens project was that records withholding withholding is very clear to you not deprive them of any constitutionally protected interest or in any way violate their constitutional rights so even leaving aside the state's very powerful arguments about why there would be no protected property interests as a general matter  constitution that we don't have to deal with an issue that's correct because even if there were such an interest it's not implicated here the sole allegations of the complaint with respect to does the asking d o l two referring a project for investigation relate to the queen's project and there was a record for a cold thing after the undisputedly failed to produce records a situation where the statute your honor so of pointed out is quite clear that a contractor's not entitled to payment and the the cross withholding and the staten island were holding both relate to under payments on the staten island project and that's a claim the plant has not claimed and cannot claim that was that those that investigation and those under payment withholdings were prompted by any action or conduct by destiny instead they were the result of documented work complaints with respect to the funding agreement between does india well that arrangement not only serves an important public and but also the record shows several important checks and balances in place the department of labor supervise the investigator is overseen by a department of labor supervisor he couldn't himself authorized the withholding and the ultimate determination is to be and was in this case made by an administrative hearing officer and subject to state court review and as for the amounts of the wage withholdings and i think this is page seventeen in bar brief my understanding is that we're talking about alternately thirty eight thousand that was withheld  for three i believe it to fifty three was the total contract amount so of what contractual amount for the queen's private so much of it had been paid out plaintiff's contractual disputes desi although not really an issue in this case largely center on their claims for over a million dollars of extra contractual payments payments that would be unlawful under a public publicly preferred contract absence compliance with the change order provisions of the particular kind of contract so that's why in the trial court decision that the plaintiff has submitted although his claim to titles mean to all of these funds the judgment is actually for thirty five they just request the records if they're getting reports of improper wages anywhere there was no report this is the this is your contractor you've got all these contracts we've got workers that are that's my question i'm not asking whether you think there ought to be personally some basis for for it but what does the statute say when does it has to have to be turned over i thought it had to be turned over on request and the request could be can assume that it's on request based upon your non answer no you there's no statute the statute says they can only be requested for probably on probable cause or on reasonable suspicion the statute doesn't say that the statute says they must be turned over on