Waterman v. Fourth Lenox Terrace Associates LLC

Background

Rory Waterman and Marniqua Tompkins filed the complaint on July 23, 2025, and paid the filing fee. They proceeded without lawyers and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against people acting under state authority who violate federal constitutional or statutory rights. Their allegations concerned eviction proceedings.

The complaint listed Fourth Lenox Terrace Associates LLC, two judges of the New York City Civil Court, one judge of the New York Supreme Court, and Fourth Lenox’s legal counsel. The court noted, however, that the complaint and motions focused mainly on Fourth Lenox and that only Fourth Lenox appeared as a defendant in the case caption.

The plaintiffs filed two motions seeking a temporary restraining order and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The more recent motion referred to an eviction notice stated to be effective August 14, 2025. A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are forms of emergency relief intended to preserve a situation while a case proceeds.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the same standard to both requests. The plaintiffs had to show irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits—or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships—and that an injunction would serve the public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or even serious legal questions. For a § 1983 claim, a defendant generally must have acted under color of state law, meaning with authority or involvement fairly attributable to the government. The plaintiffs acknowledged that Fourth Lenox was a private, for-profit corporation. The court relied on decisions rejecting the idea that a private landlord or housing provider becomes a state actor merely by providing housing. It also stated that private attorneys, even though they are officers of the court, generally do not act under color of state law.

The court further found that the plaintiffs had not identified a sufficient connection between Fourth Lenox or its counsel and the government beyond ordinary interactions with the court system and generally applicable laws. It also noted that the plaintiffs had brought a nearly identical claim against Fourth Lenox and an attorney in an earlier related proceeding, which had been dismissed for failing to state a § 1983 claim. The court relied on the reasoning in that earlier proceeding and its own analysis here.

Regarding the judicial defendants, the court noted that the plaintiffs sued them in their official capacities. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from § 1983 suits for actions taken in their judicial roles, with exceptions for actions outside that role or actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiffs alleged only actions connected to judicial eviction proceedings and offered only a conclusory statement that those proceedings lacked jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motions for emergency relief at Dockets 4 and 11. The Clerk was directed to terminate those motions. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was separately directed to terminate the motion at Docket 94, as stated in the order.