519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 50, 136 L.Ed.2d 14 (1996) (quoting Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126); see also Frooks, 997 F.Supp. at 453 (stating that “a ‘taking’ is not “without just compensation’ under section 1983 unless a plaintiff has exhausted all state remedies that may provide just compensation”). The State of New York has established remedies for just compensation claims, under the New York EDPL § 101 et seq. and Article 78, that meet all constitutional requirements. See Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877, 881 (2d Cir.1996) (Article 78 proceeding is “perfectly adequate postdeprivation remedy in ... situations” involving property interests): Frooks, 997 F.Supp. at 452 (<HOLDING>). b. Protectable Property Interest With respect
holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements holding that the decision whether an alien meets the hardship requirement in 8 usc  1229b is  a discretionary judgment holding that the edpl meets all constitutional requirements holding that a  roving wiretap surveillance warrant meets the fourth amendments particularity requirement holding that a roving wiretap surveillance warrant meets the fourth amendments particularity requirement