under a contract, [h]e must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Local 342, Long Island Pub. Serv. E ing whether a given benefits regime creates a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, we look to the statutes and regulations governing the distribution of benefits. Where those statutes or regulations meaningfully channel official discretion by mandating a defined administrative outcome, a property interest will be found to exist. Kapps v. Wing, 404 F.3d 105, 113 (2d Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Courts in this circuit have held that statutory framework may create a property interest. See Kapps, 404 F.3d at 113-15; Basciano v. Herkimer, 605 F.2d 605, 611 (2d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); see also Winston, 759 F.2d at 242; Sparveri
holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits holding that city administrative code created a property right in receipt of accident disability retirement benefits where the code required officials to give benefits to applicants who met specified criteria holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa