SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

CROWN STREET BLOCK ASSOCIATION; Index No.: 162112017

DION ASHMAN, JACQUELINE BAPTISTE,
TAMARA HARRIS. THOMAS HAYNES, Hon. Kathcrine A. Levine
SHEGUN HOLDER, ERIC HOLLENDER,
MICHAEL LIBURD, AL MILLISON,
DWAYNE NICHOLSON. ANNE NTCKENNA,

DECISION/ORDER

Petilioners,

-against-

THE CITY OF NEw YORK ("NYC"); STEVEN

BANKS, Commissioner for the Department of
Homeless Sen,ices of NYC ("DHS"); 1267
ROGERS AVENLTE LLCr HEIGHTS ADVISOR
OF. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS; SAMARITAN
DAYTOP VILLAGE INC.; and XYZ C()RP;*
Respondenls.

*XYZ Corp is fictitious and unknown to Petitioners.

The entity being whomsoever is in contract with NYC

At thisjuncture, upon havingjust received papers from both sides today. there are still
outstanding issues of lacts that need to be addressed. ln particular. the Court is not clear as to
what, ilany community input, the City took into consideration at the pulpofied town meetings.
whether the City or community representatives initiated these meetings. and w'hether the opening
ofthe shelter at 1267 Rogers Avenue was presented as a lait accompli. If so, the Court asks
parenthetically fbr the parties to address whether the Fair Share Criteria mandates that the City
substantively consider and respond to the concerns raised by the community belbre it can open a
shelter. Furthermore. the Court is still concemed as to why this pafticular shelter has been
designated as a revolving door lbr the homeless ifthe purpose of the City Homeless Plan is to
transition the homeless into permanent housing which perhaps could be accomplished at this site.
Again, under the Fair Share Criteria and existing precedent, does a court have the power to
consider this lactor in determining the sufliciency ofa Fair Share Analysis on a particular site?

1
 In order to obtain a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR $ 63 01, petitioners musl
clearly demonstrate (l) a likelihood ofsuccess ofon the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent
granting of the preliminary iniLurction, and (3) a balancing olthe equities tipping in favor ofthe
moving parly. Nobu Next Door, LLC y. Fine Arts Hous.,1nc., 4 NY3d 839 (2005); Doe v
Alexrocl, T3 N.Y.2d 748,750(1988); Vanderbilt Brookland, LLC v Vanderbilt Myrtle. Inc.,
2017NYSlipOp0i402,2017N.Y.App.Div.LEXISl384(2"dDept.20l7). Thepurposeofa
preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, as opposed to determining the ultimate rights
of the parties. Weaton/TMII Fourth Are, LP v NYC Dept. Ol Building,65 A.D. 3d 1051, 1052
(2"d Dept. 2009); Mrr. Of Chelsea Business & Properly Owners Assn. LLC v. City of N.Y."2011
NY Slip Op 31946(U).2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3510 (Sup. Cr.,N.Y. Co.2011).

The balancing ofthe equities lurther requires the Court to determine the relative prejudice
to each parly which would result liom a grant or denial olthe requested relief. Barbes Rest. Inc.
v ASRR Suzer 218. LLC, 140A.D.3d 430,432 (l'1 Dept.20l6). In this regard, a court must
consider whether the preliminary injunction would upset or maintain the status quo. See,
Amelius v Grand Imperial LLC,2016 NY Slip Op 32330(U), 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4383
(Sup. Ct. NY Co. 201 6). It makes no sense for this Court to upset the status quo ante, created by
the TRO initially issued by Kurtz. To move more children and families from their existing
shelters into the Rogers Avenue Shelter, only to dislocate them again should the Court ultimately
lind that the Fair Share Criteria have not been met would be unconscionable.

Accordingly, the TRO remains in efl'ect pending oral argument to be held on Friday June
pm. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Couft.
9 at 2:30

Dated: June 2. 201 7

-/-
,/,
I \zA ..'7

Katherine A. Levine
Justice Supreme Court

l{x" KATHERIiIE ! , ''"':

.IJST!Cg si r!:-'- ^