(MBM), 1993 WL 248210 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 1993) (“[I]t seems that if the New York legislature had intended to waive its sovereign immunity to claims brought under the New York Human Rights Law, it would have used more specific waiver language than appears in that statute.”) For this reason, Quadir’s claims under the NYSHRL must be dismissed. 3. The NYCHRL The Eleventh Amendment likewise bars claims against the State of New York under the City law. “The City of New York does not have the power to abrogate the immunity of the state, and we have found no evidence that the state has consented to suit in federal court under the NYCHRL.” Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir.2004); see also Campbell v. City Univ. Const. Fund, 98-CV-5463 (JSM), 1999 WL 435132 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Quadir’s claims under the NYCHRL
holding that the eleventh amendment bars blyshrl and nychrl claims against a state agency in federal court holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages