Suarez v. Park Lane Management Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Suarez v. Park Lane Management Corporation: Judge Swain denied the plaintiffs’ request to stop a New York eviction proceeding.
Susan Suarez, Delailah Perez, and Andre Rojas were denied an order staying their landlord-tenant proceedings or preventing an eviction order; the underlying claims against the named defendants remained for later consideration.
What happened
In Suarez v. Park Lane Management Corporation, three plaintiffs representing themselves asked the federal court to stay their landlord-tenant proceedings and prevent the New York City Civil Court from issuing an eviction order. They said the case involved apartment conditions and the handling of those proceedings.
The court said the plaintiffs had not shown a likely chance of success or sufficiently serious legal questions supporting emergency relief. It also said the complaint and motion did not allege facts showing federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and that federal intervention was likely barred by a rule generally cautioning federal courts against interfering with ongoing state proceedings.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for an order to show cause and preliminary injunctive relief. The court said it would address the complaint’s claims later, and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Park Lane Management Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-00919
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
Susan Suarez, Delailah Perez, and Andre Rojas, who were proceeding without lawyers and without paying filing fees, brought claims concerning the conditions of their apartment and the litigation of landlord-tenant proceedings in the Civil Court of the City of New York. The defendants included Park Lane Management Corporation, Kahen Properties, Majid Kahen, Michael Himy, the Civil Court, and several Civil Court employees.
The plaintiffs filed an “order to show cause for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.” They asked the federal court to stay the landlord-tenant proceedings and prevent the Civil Court from issuing an eviction order. The opinion states that a holdover proceeding was scheduled for February 5, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
A preliminary injunction is an emergency order that requires a party to do something or refrain from doing something while the case continues. The court explained that the plaintiffs had to show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring them.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ submissions did not show a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting the requested relief. Specifically, the court said that neither the complaint nor the motion alleged facts suggesting that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims. The court also stated that the requested federal intervention in an ongoing state eviction proceeding was likely barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally cautions federal courts against enjoining or interfering with ongoing state proceedings.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief and denied the request for an order to show cause, identified as ECF 5. The court stated that it would address the claims in the complaint later. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Effect of the Order
The order denied the requested emergency relief; it did not decide the claims in the complaint. The opinion does not state a final disposition of those underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.