Petretti v. Jericho
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-06605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Petretti v. Jericho, Judge Broderick denied Denise Petretti’s emergency request to pause her eviction and restore her residence.
Denise Petretti’s request for emergency relief was denied, while her underlying claims were not dismissed in this order. The eight named defendants were to receive summonses, and Petretti was given 90 days after issuance to serve them or request an extension.
What happened
In Petretti v. Jericho, Denise Petretti, representing herself, challenged eviction proceedings connected to the administration of her late husband’s estate in New York State Surrogate’s Court. She alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation, unlawful seizure, and loss of property, and asked the federal court for an emergency order restoring her to her former residence or stopping the eviction and property removal.
The court denied Petretti’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order. It found that her submissions indicated the eviction had already happened, although they gave conflicting dates, so she had not shown immediate future harm. The court also said she was unlikely to succeed because her claims appeared to ask the federal court to review and reject a state-court judgment, which federal district courts generally cannot do under the Rooker-Feldman rule.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Clerk to issue summonses for the eight named defendants. Petretti must serve the summonses and complaint, or request more time, within 90 days after the summonses are issued; otherwise, the court may dismiss the claims for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Petretti v. Jericho · No. 1:25-cv-06605
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
Denise Petretti filed the complaint on August 11, 2025, representing herself. She alleged a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, unlawful seizure, and deprivation of property. Her claims challenged eviction proceedings arising from the administration of her late husband’s estate in New York State Surrogate’s Court.
Petretti also filed an emergency request for an ex parte temporary restraining order, meaning an emergency order sought before the opposing parties could be heard. She asked the court to restore her to her former residence or stop enforcement of the eviction and removal of property.
Reasons for the ruling
Rule 65 allows an ex parte temporary restraining order only when specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can respond. The court concluded that Petretti had not met this requirement. Her filings indicated that she had already been evicted, although they were unclear about whether the eviction occurred on August 5 or August 12, 2025. Because the alleged harm had already occurred, the court found that she had not shown specific facts demonstrating immediate future harm.
The court also concluded that Petretti could not show a likelihood of success on her claims, or sufficiently serious questions about the merits. The complaint appeared to challenge the validity of a judgment issued by New York State Surrogate’s Court. The court explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing final state-court judgments. Based on Petretti’s allegations, the court said it likely lacked jurisdiction under that doctrine and that she was unlikely to succeed on her underlying claims. The court did not issue a final ruling dismissing the underlying claims.
Disposition and next steps
The court DENIED Petretti’s motion for a temporary restraining order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Document 3.
Because Petretti paid the filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Jan Jericho, Sylvia P. Tsai, Amelia Ahne-Blume, Marcela Baum, Paul Mazzacano, Diana Erbsen, Michael Manzi, and Solomon E. Jaskiel. Petretti must serve each defendant within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If she does not serve the defendants or request an extension within that period, the court stated that it may dismiss the claims under Rules 4 and 41 for failure to prosecute. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on August 14, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.