a “but for” test will satisfy. M&T Mortg. Corp. v. White, No. 04-CV-4775 (NGG) (VVP), 2006 WL 47467, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2006) (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env'l Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 81 (1978)); Guan v. Mayorkas, 530 F.Supp.3d 237, 262 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)). Further, the plaintiff's injury cannot be “selfinflicted” or “so completely due to the plaintiff's own fault as to break the causal chain.” Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733, 734 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394, 402 (2d Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An amended pleading is futile when, as a matter of law, the proposed complaint would not survive a Rule 12 motion, such as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733, 735-36 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (Rule 12(b)(1)); Santos v. E T & K Foods, Inc., 2017 WL 9256490, at *2 (E.D.N.Y June 27, 2017) (Rule 12(b)(6)).

Defendant's invocation of Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733 (2d Cir. 2020), for the proposition that a plaintiff who chooses not to take certain actions to redress his own injury cannot show causation, is not on point.

An amended pleading is futile when, as a matter of law, the proposed complaint would not survive a Rule 12 motion, such as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a Rule 12(b)(2) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733, 735-36 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (Rule 12(b)(1)); Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (Rule 12(b)(2)).

Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc'ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6)); Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733, 735-36 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (Rule 12(b)(1)).

'” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 710 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394, 403 (2d Cir. 2000)). For example, a plaintiff's injury was held not fairly traceable to the acts of the defendant where the plaintiff was eligible to be fully reimbursed for a fee but failed to seek reimbursement. Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed. App'x 733, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order). Generally, however, “‘[s]o long as the defendants have engaged in conduct that may have contributed to causing the injury, it would be better to recognize standing

"To establish the traceability requirement of standing, a plaintiff must establish that the injury was not ‘self-inflicted’ or ‘so completely due to the plaintiff's own fault as to break the causal chain.’ " Bandler v. Town of Woodstock , 832 F. App'x 733, 734 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing St. Pierre v. Dyer , 208 F.3d 394, 402 (2d Cir. 2000) ); see alsoClapper , 568 U.S. at 415–18, 133 S.Ct. 1138. "Self-inflicted injury that results from a plaintiff's personal choices rather than a defendant's conduct will not confer standing."

Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc'ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6)); Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 Fed.Appx. 733, 735-36 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (Rule 12(b)(1)).

"An injury is 'self-inflicted' so as to defeat standing only if 'the injury is so completely due to the plaintiff's own fault as to break the causal chain.'" Backer ex rel. Freedman v. Shah, 788 F.3d 341, 344 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting St. Pierre, 208 F.3d at 402); see also Bandler v. Town of Woodstock, 832 F. App'x 733, 734, (2d Cir. 2020) ("To establish the traceability requirement of standing, a plaintiff must establish that the injury was not 'self-inflicted' or 'so completely due to the plaintiff's own fault as to break the causal chain.'" (quoting St. Pierre, 208 F.3d at 402)). However, "[s]o long as the defendants have engaged in conduct that may have contributed to causing the injury, it would be better to recognize standing."