Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 141, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988). 1. The Notice of Claim Rule The defendants’ contention that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims because the plaintiff failed to subject himself for the Rule 50-h examination is without merit because no such examination is required under the NYSHRL. Section 50-h states that an examination shall only be held “wherever a notice of claim is filed against a ... town-” N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-h(l). However, a notice of claim is not required under section 50-e(l) of the Municipal Law for claims of employment discrimination against a municipality such as the Town. Hamm v. NYC Office of the Comptroller Alan Hevesi, No. 95 Civ. 6367, 1998 WL 92395, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Palmer v. City of New York, 215 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper (B) holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement (C) holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act (D) holding that the defense of good faith and probable cause is available to officers in common law actions for false arrest and imprisonment as well as in actions brought pursuant to section 1983 (E) holding that discrimination claims brought pursuant to executive law  296 are not tort actions and are thus not subject to section 50es notice of claim requirement
Output (English): holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act