Young exception in New York

2024As explained above, the Ex parte Young doctrine permits actions for prospective nonmonetary relief against state or Native American nation officials in their official capacity to enjoin them from violating state or federal law, without the presence of the immune state or Native American nation ( see Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d at 994 ; Fitzgerald v Wildcat , 687 F Supp 3d at 778).

2024We decline to recognize an exception to the Ex parte Young doctrine for actions that merely affect property owned by a Native American nation, without implicating the "particular and special circumstances," including the special sovereignty interests, at issue in Coeur d'Alene ( Idaho v Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho , 521 US at 287 ; see Muscogee [Cr.] Nation v Rollin , ___ F4th at ___, 2024 WL 4471157 , *6-7, 2024 US App LEXIS 25713, *21-26; cf. Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d at 994-995 ). [FN8] For that reason, we respectfully disagree with the decision in Nahno-Lopez v Houser ( 62

2024We decline to recognize an exception to the Ex parte Young doctrine for actions that merely affect property owned by a Native American nation, without implicating the "particular and special circumstances," including the special sovereignty interests, at issue in Coeur d'Alene ( Idaho v Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho , 521 US at 287 ; see Muscogee [Cr.] Nation v Rollin , ___ F4th at ___, 2024 WL 4471157 , *6-7, 2024 US App LEXIS 25713, *21-26; cf. Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d at 994-995 ). [FN8] For that reason, we respectfully disagree with the decision in Nahno-Lopez v Houser ( 62

2024In Nahno-Lopez v Houser , the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma explained that the [*10]equitable relief requested in the complaint, if granted, would require the individual defendants to stop the trespassing that was allegedly occurring by removing fixtures and other property belonging to the Native American nation from the plaintiffs' property ( see id. ).

2024We decline to recognize an exception to the Ex parte Young doctrine for actions that merely affect property owned by a Native American nation, without implicating the "particular and special circumstances," including the special sovereignty interests, at issue in Coeur d'Alene ( Idaho v Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho , 521 US at 287 ; see Muscogee [Cr.] Nation v Rollin , ___ F4th at ___, 2024 WL 4471157 , *6-7, 2024 US App LEXIS 25713, *21-26; cf. Jamul Action Comm. v Simermeyer , 974 F3d at 994-995 ). [FN8] For that reason, we respectfully disagree with the decision in Nahno-Lopez v Houser ( 62

2024The Supreme Court has cautioned that "[a]pplication of the Young exception must reflect a proper understanding of its role in our federal system and respect for state courts instead of a reflexive reliance on an obvious fiction" ( Idaho v Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho , 521 US 261, 270 ).

2024Thus, under the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity, although federal courts cannot give orders directly to a state, federal courts can enjoin state officials in their official capacity from ongoing violations of federal law ( see Hutto v Finney , 437 US 678, 690 ; Edelman v Jordan , 415 US 651, 664 ).

2024Thus, under the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity, although federal courts cannot give orders directly to a state, federal courts can enjoin state officials in their official capacity from ongoing violations of federal law ( see Hutto v Finney , 437 US 678, 690 ; Edelman v Jordan , 415 US 651, 664 ).

2024In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman ( 465 US at 106 ), the United States Supreme Court refused to extend the Ex parte Young exception to actions commenced against state officials for alleged violations of their own state's laws.

2024The Court held that "it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law" and that "[s]uch a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment" ( id. ).

2024Similarly, officials of Native American nations may be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief based on violations of federal law ( see Gingras v Think Fin., Inc. , 922 F3d at 121 ; Garcia v Akwesasne Hous.

2024I thus agree with the determination of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in California v Azuma Corp. ( 2024 WL 266121 , *5, 2024 US Dist LEXIS 12817 , *15 [ED Cal, No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB]) that "violations of state law do not implicate the Ex parte Young doctrine," and that "the tribal officers, as sued in their official capacities, are immune from liability for violations of state law." I find no express conflict with the Supreme Court's language in Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community ( 572 US 782 ) that Native American nation sovereign immunity does

2024I thus agree with the determination of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in California v Azuma Corp. ( 2024 WL 266121 , *5, 2024 US Dist LEXIS 12817 , *15 [ED Cal, No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB]) that "violations of state law do not implicate the Ex parte Young doctrine," and that "the tribal officers, as sued in their official capacities, are immune from liability for violations of state law." I find no express conflict with the Supreme Court's language in Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community ( 572 US 782 ) that Native American nation sovereign immunity does

1996In view of this unresolved question of fact, Supreme Court did not err in denying Ernst & Young’s motion (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977 ; Mc-Dermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 406 ).

1996In any event, we note that the complaint is sufficient since whether the services rendered by Ernst & Young were either a review or an audit, it still had an obligation to exercise due care in the performance of its duties (see, Hall & Co. v Steiner & Mondore, 147 AD2d 225, 228 ).

1996Accordingly, since Supreme Court did not convert the motion into one for summary judgment, its denial of this aspect of Ernst & Young’s motion was proper (see, Pietrosanto v NYNEX Corp., 195 AD2d 843 ).

1996In view of this unresolved question of fact, Supreme Court did not err in denying Ernst & Young’s motion (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977 ; Mc-Dermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 406 ).

1993The factual background of this contract and fraud action may be found in our decision on an earlier appeal (see, 182 AD2d 971 ).

1978"To date, however, the Supreme Court has not seen fit to extend the doctrine of Ex parte Young to permit the recovery of monetary damages.” (Westberry v Fisher, 309 F Supp 12, 19 .) In the case at hand, petitioner is clearly attempting to utilize the Young doctrine in her attempt to hold the respondent Shang personally liable for the nonfeasance of the New York State Department of Social Services.

1978"To date, however, the Supreme Court has not seen fit to extend the doctrine of Ex parte Young to permit the recovery of monetary damages.” (Westberry v Fisher, 309 F Supp 12, 19 .) In the case at hand, petitioner is clearly attempting to utilize the Young doctrine in her attempt to hold the respondent Shang personally liable for the nonfeasance of the New York State Department of Social Services.