Filed: Feb. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD , District Judge . WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Mr. Anthony J. Annucci, New York State Department of Health and Dr. Howard A. Zucker (collectively, the "State Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55), and Defendants the City of New York, Steven Banks and Joslyn Carter (collectively, the "City Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 59); WHEREAS, on July 29, 2019, Plaint
Summary: ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD , District Judge . WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Mr. Anthony J. Annucci, New York State Department of Health and Dr. Howard A. Zucker (collectively, the "State Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55), and Defendants the City of New York, Steven Banks and Joslyn Carter (collectively, the "City Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 59); WHEREAS, on July 29, 2019, Plainti..
More
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Mr. Anthony J. Annucci, New York State Department of Health and Dr. Howard A. Zucker (collectively, the "State Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55), and Defendants the City of New York, Steven Banks and Joslyn Carter (collectively, the "City Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 59);
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2019, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, directing Defendant Amsterdam Housing Authority ("AHA") to add Plaintiff to his cousin's lease, was granted (Dkt. No. 89);
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2019, Defendant AHA filed notice of interlocutory appeal (Dkt. No. 92);
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2019, the Court denied the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's motion to intervene (see Dkt. No. 91), based on lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 95). The August 5, 2019, Order also stayed all other claims not addressed by the preliminary injunction, pending appeal of the injunction (Dkt. No. 95 at 3/3). It is hereby
ORDERED that, in light of Defendant's AHA's pending appeal, the State Defendants and City Defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED, without prejudice to renewal after a decision by the Court of Appeals.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at Dkt. Nos. 55 and 59.
