Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 9, 2020

Gross v. The City of New York

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:20-cv-04340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Preliminary InjunctionCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gross v. The City of New York, Judge Daniels denied Gross’s request for temporary housing and other injunctive relief because he did not make the required showing.

Who this affects

Gross was denied a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and other requested injunctive relief; the opinion does not state a final disposition of the underlying claims.

What happened

In Gross v. The City of New York, Gross, who represented himself, asked the court for emergency relief while his case continued.

He sought temporary housing in one of 22 vacant apartments at the Waterline Square apartment complex, along with other relief. The court said he had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likely win on his claims or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

Judge George B. Daniels found that Gross’s submissions did not meet the required standard. The court denied his application for an order to show cause, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gross v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04340
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
July 9, 2020

Background

Gross, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application for an order requiring the defendants to explain why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Among other requested relief, he sought temporary housing in one of the 22 remaining vacant apartments at the Waterline Square apartment complex in New York, New York.

Legal standard

The court explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain it, Gross had to show that he was likely to suffer harm that could not be repaired later and either that he was likely to succeed on his claims or that his claims raised serious questions suitable for litigation, with the balance of hardships strongly favoring him.

Ruling

The court found that Gross’s submissions did not demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court therefore denied his application for an order to show cause for injunctive and other relief. It also denied his application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The order did not state that the underlying claims were dismissed.

Effect

The ruling denied Gross’s requested temporary housing and other preliminary relief. The opinion does not describe a final ruling on the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.