and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) that there be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997); see also Lee v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 118 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir .1997). The District Court properly concluded that the Worleys lack standing to litigate this matter. See New York Envtl. Justice Alliance v. Giuliani, 50 F.Supp.2d 250, 254 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>), affd on other grounds, 214 F.3d 65 (2d
holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil rico claim predicated on illegal gambling because they failed to allege a compensable injury holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit under seqraceqr because they failed to allege any property interest in the community gardens at issue