Stora v. The City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-03165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Skiboky Stora v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied Stora’s request to halt his state criminal trial because he showed no legally sufficient irreparable harm.
Skiboky Stora’s request to stop his ongoing state criminal proceedings was denied. The order allowed that state proceeding to continue and did not resolve the underlying § 1983 action.
What happened
In Skiboky Stora v. The City of New York, et al., Skiboky Stora asked the federal court to stop his ongoing state criminal case, arguing that the prosecution relied on insufficient, false, or improperly gathered evidence.
The court found that Stora’s complaints about the evidence and the defendants’ conduct were matters he could raise in his criminal defense. It also found that concerns about his political image were not the kind of harm that could justify stopping the state case, and that he had not provided enough factual support to show likely success or explain how an injunction would serve the public interest.
Judge Rochon denied Stora’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The court also determined that abstention principles required it not to interfere with the ongoing state criminal proceeding, which involved an important state interest and provided Stora an adequate opportunity to address his claims.
The detailed version
- Stora v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03165
- Rochon
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Skiboky Stora filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during his arrest and later prosecution. The court had stayed that federal case while related state criminal proceedings continued.
Stora then filed an emergency request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He asked the federal court to order the New York County Supreme Court’s Criminal Term to immediately stop or vacate his state criminal proceedings. His request focused on his assertions that the evidence against him was insufficient, false, or otherwise not credible, and that defendants had improperly gathered or presented that evidence.
The Parties’ Arguments
The City of New York and New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. asked the court to refrain from interfering with the state criminal trial under the Younger abstention doctrine, a rule generally requiring federal courts not to interrupt ongoing state criminal proceedings. They also argued that appearing for trial would not cause Stora irreparable harm.
Stora maintained that the defendants planned to use false or incredible evidence against him and that this plan would cause irreparable harm.
Court’s Analysis
A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy. The person requesting it generally must show irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strong balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
When the requested relief would interfere with a state criminal proceeding, the required irreparable harm must be more than the cost, anxiety, or inconvenience of defending a criminal case. It must be harm that cannot be addressed through the defense of that prosecution.
The court held that Stora had not shown this kind of harm. His arguments about the weight and admissibility of evidence, and about how defendants obtained that evidence, concerned issues that could be addressed in his state criminal defense. The court also rejected his argument that the trial would irreparably damage his political image, treating that concern as an inconvenience of defending a criminal prosecution rather than the required irreparable harm.
The court further found that Stora had not shown a likelihood of success because he offered no factual support for his allegations about the defendants’ conduct or the evidence. Even reading his filing liberally, the court concluded that he had not explained how the requested injunction would serve the public interest.
The court also determined that the three requirements for Younger abstention were met: an ongoing state proceeding existed; that proceeding involved an important state interest; and Stora could adequately address his evidentiary claims in the state proceeding.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Stora’s Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The opinion addresses the request for emergency relief and does not state that the underlying § 1983 action was resolved by this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.