Lynch v. City of New York (2020)

Nov. 25, 2020); see also Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 82 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining that testimony concerning events that occurred in 2004 and were publicly criticized in 2007 may not, viewed in isolation, “be sufficient to state a plausible claim that the City” had the complained-of custom or policy); Beltran v. City of New York, 2020 WL 4260990 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y.

“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted and alteration incorporated).

“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (alteration omitted) (quoting Patel v. Contemp.

See Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.”).

Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1998) (stating that in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court “must accept as true all the factual allegations in the complaint”); Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that [for granting] a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” (internal quotation omitted)).

See Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 82 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[W]e view the allegations of the Complaint [regarding Monell liability] in combination rather than piecemeal; and we conclude that the Complaint was sufficient when taken as a whole.”).

See Lively, 6 F.4th at 301 (explaining that 12(c) standard is “identical” to 12(b)(6) standard); Lynch, 952 F.3d at 82 (“[T]he fact[s] asserted [at the pleading stage] need not be presented in a form that would be admissible at trial.”); see also In re OSG Sec.

A pleading is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”3 Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

The Court assumes the truth of, and draws reasonable inferences from, the well-pleaded factual allegations, see Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020), but does not accept as true any legal conclusions, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Lynch v. City of N.Y., 952 F.3d 67, 74 (2d Cir. 2020); Errato v. Am.

The Court assumes the truth of, and draws reasonable inferences from, the well-pleaded factual allegations, see Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020), but does not accept as true any legal conclusions, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

The Court assumes the truth of, and draws reasonable inferences from, the well-pleaded factual allegations, see Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020), but does not accept as true any legal conclusions, see Dkt.

Mar. 31, 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)).

“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

Advisory Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 , 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)).

Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 , 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)).

Legal Standard On a motion to dismiss, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

Advisory Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 , 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)).

At this stage, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the 1 This refers to the ECF pagination, as there are multiple documents within this single exhibit that have separate sets of internal pagination. complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).2 In doing so, the court “must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” In re NYSE Specialists Sec.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides “[a]fter the pleadings are closed— but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that [for granting] a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Lynch v. City of N.Y., 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (quoting Patel v.…

“The court must also construe all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted).

Legal Standard On a motion to dismiss, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).3 In doing so, the court “must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” In re 2 Plaintiff initially filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which transferred the case to this Court pursu…

P. 12(h)(3). “[T]he court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

“The assessment of whether a complaint’s factual allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief ‘does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal’ conduct.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff plead…

The Court construes plaintiffs’ claims as being asserted against the City of New York, given that ACS is not a suable entity.2 Legal Standard On a motion to dismiss, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

Aug. 16, 2023) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 2020)). “‘And even if a document is “integral” to the complaint, it must be clear on the record that no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document,’ and it must be clear that ‘there exist no material disputed issues of fact regarding the relevance of the document.’” AECOM, 19 F.4th at 106 (quoting DiFolco, 622 F.3d at 111 ).

BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the Complaint (Compl., ECF No.1), and those documents relied upon so heavily that they are “integral” to the Complaint.1 Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 2020).

In determining whether to dismiss, the court must “accept all ‘well-pleaded factual allegations’ in the complaint as true.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 ); see also Leybinsky v. Iannacone, No. 97-CV-05238, 2000 WL 863957 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.

When conducting the review required by the PLRA and the in forma pauperis statute, a court must “accept all ‘well-pleaded factual allegations’ in the complaint as true.” See Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 ); see also Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that a court must “accept all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor” when reviewing …

This court’s task is “to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

This court's task is “to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side." Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

This court's task is “to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side." Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

This court's task is “to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side." Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), In evaluating the complaint, I must “accept ail well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true” and “construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

In that context, “[a] court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

Advisory Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 , 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)).

Facts “may well be subject to diverging interpretations, each of which is plausible. ... [However,] [t]he choice between two plausible inferences that may be drawn from factual allegations is not a choice to be made by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation and citation omitted).

Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 , 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020))).

Legal Standard On a motion to dismiss, “the court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020).

In evaluating the complaint, I must “accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true” and “construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lynch v. City af New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

In evaluating the complaint, I must “accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true” and “construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir, 2020) (citation omitted).

See Ezra v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 784 F. App’x 48 , 49 (2d Cir. 2019); Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67 , 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (“The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.”).

May 22, 2014), aff'd sub nom., 622 F. App’x 10 (2d Cir. 2015); see also Lynch v. City Of New York, 952 F.3d 67 , 77 (2d Cir. 2020) (“there is a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned”) (internal quotation marks 21 Case 1:19-cv-08735-KPF-RWL Document 86 Filed 01/21/22 Page 22 of 25 omitted); Lewis v. Huebner, No. 17-CV-8101, 2020 WL 1244254 , at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

See also Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he court’s task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.”).

See, e.g., Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67 , 77–78 (2d Cir. 2020) (“An arrestee who has not been adjudged guilty of a crime is of course entitled to due process and cannot properly be subjected to punishment.”) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (“[T]he proper inquiry [for a pretrial detainee] is whether conditions [of confinement] amount to punishment of the detainee” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)).

See Lynch v. City of N.Y., 952 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that a pleading is deemed to include any written instrument that... is incorporated in it by reference[.]”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 The PAC states that the Amended Notice of Claim is attached as Exhibit A; however, the PAC does not include any exhibits.

See Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that a pleading is deemed to include any written instrument that is attached to it as an exhibit or is incorporated in it by reference.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

See Lynch, 952 F.3d at 75 (“[A]llegations that are ‘conclusory’ are ‘not entitled to be assumed true[.]’”); see also Spinnato v. Unity of Omaha Life Ins.

See Lynch v. City of N.Y, 952 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir, 2020) (“It is well established that a pleading is deemed to include any written instrument that . .. is incorporated in it by reference[.}”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Fincher v. Cty, of Westchester, 979 F. Supp. 989, 1003 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“The fact a cause of action not mentioned in the notice of claim arises out of the same incident as enumerated claims ‘is not pivotal; rather, the nature…