Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at *13 (quoting Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194). In applying this doctrine, “the Second Circuit has determined that ’New York in fact affords an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the form of, inter alia, a Court of Claims- action.’” Id. (italics omitted) (quoting Jackson v. Burke, 256 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir.2001)); see also Malik v. City of N.Y., No. 11-CV-6062, 2012 WL 3345317, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2012) (“New York provides such an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the form of state law causes of action for negligence, replevin, and conversion.”), adopted by 2012 WL 4475156 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012). District courts thus routinely dismiss claims by inmates who assert that they were deprived of property by corrections officers. See, e.g., West, 2014 WL 4290813, at *6 (<HOLDING>); JCG v. Ercole, No. 11-CV-6844, 2014 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional (B) holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies (C) holding the deprivation of the inmates property interest in his mail is not a cognizable constitutional injury given the availability of adequate state postdeprivation remedies under new york law internal quotation marks omitted (D) recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted (E) holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available
Output (English): holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies