
    NEW HOLLAND VILLAGE, and its individual members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DESTASO ENTERPRISES LIMITED, Vincent Destaso, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Rockland County, New York and Town of Clarkstown, New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 01-7627.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 5, 2002.
    Ralph Elefante, Elefante & Persanis, Somers, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Charles J. Gayner, Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, N.Y., N.Y., for Destaso Appellees.
    John J. Gibson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., N.Y., N.Y., for New York State Appellee.
    Darius Chafizadeh, Thaeher Proffitt & Wood, White Plains, N.Y., for Appellee Rockland County.
    John J. McKenna, Robert A. Peirce & Assoc., White Plains, N.Y., for Appellee Town of Clarkstown.
    Present KEARSE and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, JONES, District Judge .
    
      
       Honorable Barbara S. Jones, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by counsel for plaintiffs, submitted by counsel for defendant Town, and argued by counsel for the remaining defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge McMahon’s Memorandum Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint, dated April 18, 2001. Although, as the district court indicated, there are no decisions of this Circuit or the New York State courts as to whether negligence by a state actor that results in property damage can provide the basis for a claim under the Takings Clause of the Constitution, if such a claim were stated here it would not be ripe for adjudication, given plaintiffs failure to pursue available state remedies for compensation, see Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-95, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  