brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant OASAS and Defendants Gonzalez-Sanchez, Lawler and Felter in their official capacities must be dismissed because of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Dkt. No. 9-1 at 16-17. The Eleventh Amendment provides a state with sovereign immunity from suit. See Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1638, 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011) (citation omitted). “[A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person’s suit against a State.” Id. at 1638 (citation omitted). Generally, New York and its agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See Woods v. Rondout Valley Central Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). To the extent that
holding that the eleventh amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities holding that the protection afforded by the eleventh amendment extends not only to the states themselves but also to their instrumentalities and government officials acting in that capacity recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state