whether the plaintiff has a claim of entitlement, it is necessary to consider the applicable state law, contract, or regulation that purports to establish the benefit. The Plaintiffs contend that they have a property interest in the following: (1) restructuring CEDC’s debt through a HUD Section 108 loan guarantee; (2) the outcome of a competitive bidding process for a public contract with the Bureau of Traffic Violations; and (3) reimbursement of legal expenses under the DSS Agreement. (1) The DSS Agreement With respect to the DSS Agreement, the unlawful takings claim is based on the plaintiffs’ underlying contract action. However, this Circuit has not extended property protection to contractual rights. See, e.g., S & D Maintenance Co., Inc. v. Goldin, 844 F.2d 962 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). (2) The Section 108 Loan Guarantee As to the
holding that claims for payment under city contract for services already rendered did not rise to constitutionally protectable property interest the doctrinal implications of constitutionalizing all public contract rights would raise substantial concerns holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable