76 Route 6 Holdings Inc. v. Town of Yorktown, NY

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Mar. 31, 2023) (concluding 30-month gap too lengthy). In the Complaint, Plaintiff has not alleged when the comment pertaining to AAA Carting were made, or when the waste hauling bidding occurred. (See generally Compl.) Without allegations as to the timeline—when the comments might have been made years or even decades earlier—the Court cannot rely on temporal proximity to demonstrate causation, even on a Motion to Dismiss. See Nelson v. Argyropoulous, No. 18-CV-11413, 2021 WL 4352313, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2021) (“Because Plaintiff has not set forth a time frame for his complaints, the Court cannot conclude that a close temporal proximity establishes causality.”); Amato v. Elicker, No. 20-CV-464, 2021 WL 1428192, at *6 (D. Conn. Apr. 15, 2021) (dismissing claims where the plaintiffs “allege[d] no dates or other facts” about allegedly targeted events and did “not even allege facts suggesting that the [defendant] was aware that they had hosted these events”). And, assuming the Court has correctly identified the state court litigation referenced in the Complaint, that litigation went on for years prior to the allegedly retaliatory activity described here. Where the “First Amendment[-protected] speech occurred with great regularity