Case Name: Michael BENINCASA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-12
Citations: 85 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 03-7557
Parties: Michael BENINCASA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: JACOBS, STRAUB, Circuit Judges, and CARMAN, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Michael BENINCASA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-7557.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 12, 2004.
Richard I. Scheyer, Scheyer & Jellenik, Nesconset, New York (William D. Wexler, North Babylon, New York), for Petitioner, of counsel.
Yueh-Ru Chu, Assistant Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Deon J. Nossel and Norman Spiegel), for Respondent, of counsel.
Present: JACOBS, STRAUB, Circuit Judges, and CARMAN, Judge.
The Honorable Gregory W. Carman, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Michael Benincasa appeals from the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his takings claim by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Seybert, /.). Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.
When reviewing such a dismissal, "we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo." Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir.1997).
For the reasons substantially stated by the district court, Benincasa's takings claim was not ripe for review. The district court therefore properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1). It is therefore unnecessary to consider the Department of Environmental Conservation's contention that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes it from a takings claim brought in federal court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.