Opinion
15-CV-3559 (FB) (LB)
06-26-2015
Appearances: For the Plaintiffs: PETER VOLLMER, ESQ. Jericho Atrium 500 N. Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 For the Defendants: ROBERT L. KRAFT, ESQ. Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs:
PETER VOLLMER, ESQ.
Jericho Atrium
500 N. Broadway
Jericho, NY 11753
For the Defendants:
ROBERT L. KRAFT, ESQ.
Office of the Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271
BLOCK, Senior District Judge :
Plaintiffs Suzanne Caporicci ("Caporicci"), Mary Dachille ("Dachille") and Gregory Tobin ("Tobin") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek a preliminary injunction temporarily adjourning fair hearings at which they plan to contest adverse determinations regarding their receipt of benefits under New York State public programs. Plaintiffs seek this relief pending resolution of a separate, anticipated preliminary injunction request that would require Defendants to provide them with copies of policy materials they have requested for use in these hearings.
On June 19, 2015, Plaintiffs made an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). On June 24, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief at which counsel for Defendants appeared. Accordingly, the Court will convert Plaintiffs' TRO motion into an application for a preliminary injunction. See Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) ("The district court may convert a hearing for a temporary restraining order into a hearing for a preliminary injunction so long as the adverse party had notice of the hearing.").
Tobin's hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 30, 2015. Caporicci and Dachille's hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, July 7, 2015. Plaintiffs have known about these pending hearings - and the fact that they had not received the requested policy materials - since at least the middle of May 2015. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs waited until Friday, June 19, 2015 - the eve of Caporicci and Dachille's original hearing dates - to file this action. Plaintiffs' delay undermines the necessity of a preliminary injunction. See Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273, 276 (2d Cir. 1985) ("Preliminary injunctions are generally granted under the theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiffs' rights. Delay in seeking enforcement of those rights, however, tends to indicate at least a reduced need for such drastic, speedy action."). Moreover, by waiting until the eleventh hour to bring this action, Plaintiffs essentially created the exigency which they argue entitles them to emergency relief. See Nat'l Council of Arab Ams. v. City of New York, 331 F. Supp. 2d 258, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying preliminary injunction motion where "[t]o a significant degree, the emergency created by th[e] preliminary injunction application [was] of Plaintiffs' making"). Under these circumstances, the Court declines to grant Plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunctive relief.
When Plaintiffs filed this case, both Caporicci and Dachille's hearings were scheduled for Monday, June 22, 2015. During the June 24, 2015 hearing, counsel represented that their hearings were adjourned until Tuesday, July 7, 2015. --------
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Frederic Block
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
June 26, 2015