Filed: Jun. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC 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. 1 Plaintiffs seek this relief pending resolution of a separate, anticipated preliminary injunction request th
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC 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. 1 Plaintiffs seek this relief pending resolution of a separate, anticipated preliminary injunction request tha..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERIC 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.1 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.
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.2 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.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
SO ORDERED.
