Bartolini v. Town of Yorktown

Background

John A. Bartolini, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal and state criminal laws, and state tort laws. The opinion says the claims appear to arise from a dispute about the use and designation of his family’s plot of land.

Bartolini requested emergency relief. The court interpreted that request as seeking both a temporary restraining order (TRO), which can provide short-term emergency relief, and a preliminary injunction, which can preserve the situation while a case continues. He asked the court to stop defendants from conducting an October 23, 2025 “ZBA hearing,” proceeding with state criminal charges, and preventing his “usual farm activities” through enforcement of alleged zoning violations.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a TRO and preliminary injunction are extraordinary remedies. To obtain one, a plaintiff generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. For an order issued without first hearing from the opposing party, the plaintiff must provide specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can respond.

The court concluded that Bartolini had not made that showing. It understood his complaint to allege economic losses from interruption of his business and emotional damages, but found that he had not shown those losses could not be fully compensated with money. The court also found that he had not demonstrated the immediacy of the alleged harm: he identified the October 23 hearing and “the winter” as relevant time periods but did not describe what harm would result from those events.

Because the court found no sufficient showing of irreparable harm, it said there was no present need to evaluate all of the remaining preliminary-injunction factors. The court nevertheless stated that, based on the materials submitted so far, Bartolini had not shown a likelihood of success. It said his federal and state criminal-law claims were not legally cognizable as civil claims because the cited criminal statutes did not provide private causes of action. It also said his remaining § 1983 and state tort claims lacked sufficient allegations at that stage, and that the tort claims required briefing and further factual development.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Bartolini’s application for a TRO. The court withheld ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion until all parties could appear and submit briefing. It ordered Bartolini to serve a copy of the order on the defendants within thirty days. After he files proof of that service, along with proof that he served the complaint and summonses, the court will enter a briefing schedule for the preliminary-injunction motion.

Scope of the decision

The opinion rules on the requested emergency TRO and does not state that it finally resolves the underlying claims. The body of the opinion spells the plaintiff’s surname once as “Bortolini,” while the caption, case name supplied, and signature use “Bartolini.”