In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). The stay factors are a “sliding scale” in which “

In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987)). First, Mr. Trump has not shown the requisite strong likelihood of success.

In deciding whether to order a stay pending appeal, the court must consider the "traditional" factors, including: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injury the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)); see also In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). The Second Circuit has further held that "the degree to which a factor must be present varies with the strength of the other factors, meaning that more of one factor excuses less of the other."

Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987)). Accord In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir.2007); Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir.2002).In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d at 170 (quoting Thapa v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 323, 334 (2d Cir.2006)).

Nken, 556 U.S. at 560-61 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). Accord In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007); Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2002). In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d at 170 (quoting Thapa v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 323, 334 (2d Cir. 2006)).

"The four factors to be considered in issuing a stay pending appeal are well known: `(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.'" In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). In considering these factors, "the degree to which a factor must be present varies with the strength of the other factors, meaning that "`more of one [factor] excuses less of the other.

A court must consider four well-established factors before deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)) (footnote omitted). The district court determined that Market had not made the required showing under this standard.

The relevant factors are “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)) (footnote omitted).

(citation omitted); In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The four factors to be considered in issuing a stay pending appeal are well known: '(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.' "

” In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). The Second Circuit has “treated these criteria somewhat like a sliding scale, ” in that “the necessary ‘level' or ‘degree' of possibility of success will vary according to the court's assessment of the other stay factors” and “the probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury plaintiff will suffer absent the stay.