Hidalgo et al v. State of New York et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied. If the parties shall intend to move for summary judgment, they shall exchange 56.1 Statements by 9/20/2012, serve 56.1 Counterstatements by 10/4/2012, and file pre-motion letters by 10/18/2012. So Ordered.. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/20/2012. (Padilla, Kristin)

IN

us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

e~!~~~l'l,gll

DISTRICT COURT E.O N ¥

AUG 20 201Z

*

* ISLAND OFFICE
LONG

--------------------------------------X

WALTER HIDALGO and MICHELLE HIDALGO,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11-CV-5074 (JS) (GRB)

-againstSTATE OF NEW YORK, ANDREW CUOMO, as
Governor of the State of New York,
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, and GREGORY BLASS, as
Commissioner,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:

John W. Ray, Esq.
Vesselin Venelinov Mitev, Esq.
John Ray & Associates
122 North Country Road
P.O. Box 5440
Miller Place, NY 11764

For Defendants:
State of N.Y. &
Governor Cuomo

Derrick Jeffrey Robinson, Esq.
Dorothy 0. Nese, Esq.
N.Y.S. Office of the Attorney General
200 Old Country Road, Suite 240
Mineola, NY 11501
Drew w. Schirmer, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney's Office
100 V,eterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Suffolk County Dep't
of Social Services &
Gregory Blass

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Presently
Michelle Hidalgo's
the

Court's

"November

pending

("Plaintiffs")

November

Order")

before

21,

adopting

2011
with

the

Court

motion for
Memorandum
modification

is

Walter

and

reconsideration of
and

Order

(the

Magistrate

Judge

·
Arlene Rosario Lindsay's Report and Reconunen d a t lOn
denying

Plaintiffs'

motion

for

a

( "R&R")

and
For

preliminary injunction.

the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The
facts

of

Court

this

Lindsay's R&R
(Docket

assumes

case

and

familiarity

directs

(Docket Entry 17)

Entry

2

19)

for

a

1

the

with
reader

the
to

underlying
both

Judge

and the Court's November Order

detailed

The

sununary.

Court

will

briefly discuss the relevant procedural background.
Plaintiffs
U.S. C.
of

the

Court

1983 to

§

supporting
received
Plaintiffs

Social

which,
their

enjoin

Services

together,

spouse's

public

simultaneously

the

("TRO")

State

of

Law

hold

children

assistance

restraining order
to

action

this

or

and

the

stepparents
who

are

welfare.

filed

New York

42

receiving
(Docket

applications

for

Family

liable
or

Entry
a

for
have
1.)

temporary

and a preliminary injunction seeking
New

York

and

Suffolk

County

enforcing these allegedly unconstitutional provisions.
Entry 2.)

to

pursuant

challenge the constitutionality of provisions

New York
Act

conunenced

Plaintiffs argued that

from

(Docket

such preliminary relief was

1

Hidalgo v. New York, No. 11-CV-5074, 2011 WL 5838489 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 17, 2011).
2

Hidalgo v. New York, No. 11-CV-5074, 2011 WL 5838494 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 21, 2011).
2

necessary because a

support proceeding against Mr.

been scheduled in Family Court for November 22, 2011.
On October 18,

2011,

Judge

(Docket Entries

Lindsay issued an

3

the Court denied Plaintiffs'

and referred their application for
Judge Lindsay.

Hidalgo had

TRO

a preliminary injunction to

4,

6.)

R&R denying

On November 17,

Plaintiffs'

2011,

request

for

preliminary injunction as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act,

u.s.c.

§

2283.

(Docket

Entry

On

17.)

Plaintiffs filed objections to the R&R,

November

18,

On November 21,

2011,

Order sustaining Plaintiffs'

28

2011,

arguing that the Anti-

Injunction Act does not apply to Section 1983 claims.
Entry 18.)

a

(Docket

the Court issued the November

objections but nonetheless denying

Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as barred by the
Younger abstention doctrine and,

in the alternative,

to establish irreparable harm.
On

December

5,

motion for reconsideration.

for failing

(Docket Entry 19.)

2011,

Plaintiffs

filed

the

pending

of

review

(Docket Entry 21.)
DISCUSSION

The

Court

will

discuss

the

standard

applicable to motions for reconsideration before addressing the
merits of Plaintiffs' arguments.

3

Neither party has updated the Court regarding the progress
and/or outcome of this proceeding.
3

I.

Standard of Review
"Local

Rule

reconsideration,
matters
court

or

Oct.

Int'l Bus.
Supp.

2d

Ins.

Co.,

6,

2008)

587,

589

a

motion

for

'set[]

forth

concisely

the

which

counsel

believes

the

(alteration

u.s.

4525400,

2008 WL

in

v.

at *3

L.P.

Crossing,

03-CV-5429,

(quoting

original)

World Trade Ctr.

(S.D.N.Y.

in

that,

Grand

11

No.

Ins. Co. v.

must

decisions

overlooked.'

Underwriters

requires

movant

controlling

has

(S.D.N.Y.

the

6. 3

Props-.

L.L.C.,

407 F.

"Reconsideration

2006)).

SR

of

a

court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly

in

the

interests

(S.D.N.Y.

715

713'

citation omitted) .

finality

and

conservation

Parrish v. Sollecito,

scarce judicial resources."

2d

of

2003)

(internal

253 F.

quotation

of

Supp.

marks

and

"The motion is not a substitute for appeal

and may be granted only where the Court has overlooked matters
or controlling decisions which might have materially influenced
the

25

earlier decision."
F.

Supp.

2d

369,

Morales v.
372

(S.D.N.Y.

Quintiles Transnat' l
1998)

(internal

Corp.,

quotation

marks and citation omitted)
II.

Plaintiffs' Motion
Plaintiffs

motion

for

exception

make

three

arguments

reconsideration:
to

intervention

the
in

Younger

unusual

( 1)

the

doctrine

in

Court
allowing

circumstances--i.e.,
4

support

when

of

their

overlooked
for
a

an

federal

statute

is

"blatantly violative"
(2)

a

Family

incapable
claims,

of

and

Court
hearing

(3)

of a

constitutional

Support
an d

Magistrate

.
ru l 1.ng

on

right
is

(Pls.

Mem.

2)'

jurisdictionally

Pl a 1.' nt1.' ffs'

constitutional

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the

court does not intervene in the Family Court support proceeding.
Because the Court finds
evidence

and/or

legal

concluding that there

that Plaintiffs have failed to present
authority

is no

that

the

Court

overlooked

risk of irreparable harm,

in

it will

not address the validity of Plaintiffs' other arguments.'

4

Plaintiffs' other arguments are nonetheless without merit. A
case is "pending" for the purposes of Younger abstention until
appellate remedies have been exhausted, and here "there is no
indication that [P]laintiff[s] lack[] the opportunity to air
[their] complaints in New York appellate courts." Lomtevas v.
Cardozo, No. 05-CV-2779, 2006 WL 229908, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.
31, 2006); ~also Glatzer v. Barone, 394 F. App'x 763, 765 (2d
Cir. 2010) ("Fundamental to Younger is the principle that a
party .
. must exhaust his appellate remedies before seeking
relief in the District Court .
." (alterations in original)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Levy v.
Lerner, 853 F. Supp. 636, 642 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) ("Even if the
litigant has not raised his federal claims in state court, the
federal court 'should assume that state procedures will afford
an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to
the contrary.'" (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S.
1, 15, 107 s. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987)).
Further, "the
possible unconstitutionality of a statute 'on its face' does not
in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to
enforce it." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54, 91 S. Ct. 746,
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). Rather, the statute must be
"flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional
prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in
whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to
apply it." Id. at 53-54 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The unconstitutionality of the statutes in question
is not so obvious.
In addition, federal courts may only
intervene in an ongoing state proceeding where there is a "great
5

"A
of

issuance

Towers,

showing
a

Inc.,

allege

that

of

irreparable

the

F. 3d

essential

to

the

Shapiro

v.

332

1995).

Plaintiffs

328,

Court

is

injunction."

preliminary

51

harm

(2d

overlooked two

Cir.
types

of

Cadman

harm that

they

will suffer if a preliminary injunction is not issued.
First,
financial
Hidalgo

harm
is

a

Plaintiffs assert that Mr.
if

a

support

stay-at-home

financial

loss

by

a

money

injunction

2011 WL 5838494,
Co., 934 F.2d 30,
submit[]"

that

deprivation

stepparent

entered

and

because

"Mr.

[who]

can't

parent

But, as the Court held in

"'when a party can be fully compensated for

compelling reason why the
preliminary

is

(Pls. Mem. 7.)

afford any payment."
its November Order,

order

Hidalgo will suffer

at *4
34

should

be

"[e]ven

the

of a
Order,

Plaintiffs "respectfully
amount

of

when

brought

harm,

monetary
by

state against one person to pay another person's debts."
Mem.

7.)

support

However,
of

such

an

Plaintiffs

provide

assertion,

and

no

Nat' 1 Union Fire Ins.

smallest

irreparable

remedy

November

granted.'"

(quoting Borey v.

simply

is

extraordinary equitable

(2d Cir. 1991)).

constitutes

there

judgment,

no

while

legal

the
(Pls.

authority

monetary

loss

in
may

support a finding of irreparable harm "in situations where the
party

that

might

ultimately

be

ordered

to

pay

the

monetary

and immediate" risk of irreparable injury, id. at 45, and as the
Court explains below, Plaintiffs have failed to establish any
risk of irreparable injury here.
6

damages is insolvent or facing imminent bankruptcy[]
perilous financial state," WestLB AG v.
2012

CV-5398,
(internal

WL

3135825,

quotation

assertions

[a]

of

marks

at
and

BAC Fla.

(S.D.N.Y.

*5

citation

No.

Bank,
Aug.

omitted),

financial

defendant [ 's]

or is in a

11-

2012)

2.

•conclusory

weakness

do

not

demonstrate a likelihood of such harm," Fluor Daniel Argentina,
Inc.

v.

ANZ

Bank,

13

F.

(alterations in original)
Here,

omitted).

Supp.

2d

will

the

564

1998)

Plaintiffs provide the Court with nothing but
Hidalgo's financial state.

Family Court will not enter a

bankrupt

(S.D.N.Y.

(internal quotation marks and citation

conclusory assertions regarding Mr.
Further,

562,

or

otherwise

harm Mr.

5

support order that

Hidalgo

and

his

family,

especially if his financial condition is as dire as his lawyer
contends.
541,

King v.

Pine Plains Cent.

546 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

Sch.

Dist.,

923

F.

Supp.

(•[W]e note that N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT§ 415

directs the Family Court to set a support payment amount that is
'fair and reasonable.'

We feel confident in stating that such a

standard does not encompass
would drive

the

plaintiffs

the entry of a

support order that

into bankruptcy or

otherwise

cause

them irreparable financial harm.")

5

The Court notes that Plaintiffs had sufficient resources to pay
the filing fee in this action and did not seek leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, thus undermining Plaintiffs' conclusory
assertion that Mr. Hidalgo could not afford •any payment" (Pls.
Mem. 7).
7

Second,

Plaintiffs

assert

that

the

Court

overlooked

•the drastic and severe strain that th[e support] proceeding has
placed on

the

Hidalgos'

this

of

alleged

harm.

type
See,

~·

(Pls.

marriage."
injury

does

not

that

constitute

8.)

constitute

However,

irreparable

Ahmad v. ·chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, No.

98-CV-6983, 1999 WL 965453, at *7 n.6
(finding

Mem.

•strain

irreparable

on

(N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 1999)

familial

injury).

relationships"

Even

if

such

does

marital

not

strain

did, courts require more than unsupported factual conclusions to
support a finding of irreparable harm.
Am.,

L.L.C.

v.

Amesbury

Grp.,

Inc.,

See Caldwell Mfg. Co. N.
No.

3555833, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2011)

11-CV-6183T,

2011

WL

(collecting cases).

CONCLUSION
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

Plaintiffs'

motion

for

reconsideration is DENIED.
If
judgment,
2012,

the

parties

still

intend

to

move

for

summary

they shall exchange 56.1 Statements by September 20,

serve 56.1 Counterstatements by October 4,

2012,

and file

pre-motion letter(s) by October 18, 2012.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

August
20 , 2012
Central Islip, NY

8