DUANE v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered January 23, 2026, which denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order (denominated decision and judgment), same court and Justice, entered on or about January 22, 2026, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the New York City Housing Authority's redevelopment plan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the order entered January 23, 2026, the motion court correctly determined that the July 28, 2025 record of decision, issued by defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), documented the decision to proceed with the redevelopment and constituted the final and binding administrative determination (see Walton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 N.Y.3d 186, 194, 831 N.Y.S.2d 749, 863 N.E.2d 1001 [2007] ).  On the same day, NYCHA began issuing mandatory relocation notices and subsequently began relocating tenants, inflicting actual, concrete injury on them (see id.).  The four-month limitations period expired on November 28, 2025 (CPLR 217[1] ).  Therefore, plaintiffs' complaint, filed on December 22, 2025, was untimely, and plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on the merits of their claims (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191 [2005] ).

We decline to review plaintiffs' unpreserved argument based on a subsequent NYCHA board resolution in September 2025 (see Matter of Khan v. New York State Dept. of Health, 96 N.Y.2d 879, 880, 730 N.Y.S.2d 783, 756 N.E.2d 71 [2001] ), which is outside the record on appeal (see News Am. Mktg., Inc. v. Lepage Bakeries, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 146, 149, 791 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept 2005] ).  Moreover, plaintiffs' argument that NYCHA is judicially and equitably estopped from raising a statute of limitations argument was not raised before the motion court, and we decline to review this unpreserved argument (see Acosta v. Yale Club of N.Y. City, 261 A.D.2d 261, 261, 690 N.Y.S.2d 544 [1st Dept 1999] ).

As for the order entered on or about January 22, 2026, the court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.  Petitioners rely on inadmissible hearsay in support of their motion (see 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v. CGM EMP LLC, 77 A.D.3d 330, 335, 906 N.Y.S.2d 549 [1st Dept 2010], mod on other grounds 16 N.Y.3d 822, 921 N.Y.S.2d 184, 946 N.E.2d 172 [2011] ).  Moreover, it is undisputed that the tenants have been guaranteed appropriate and accessible relocation apartments, units in the new buildings once complete, and packing and moving assistance.  While relocation may be inconvenient and difficult, particularly for seniors, petitioners have not demonstrated that it rises to the level of irreparable harm (see Nobu Next Door, LLC, 4 N.Y.3d at 840, 800 N.Y.S.2d 48, 833 N.E.2d 191).

The balance of the equities is not in favor of petitioners, who delayed more than three months after the relocation process began and after most residents had already relocated to seek injunctive relief (see Kazantzis v. Cascade Funding RM1 Acquisitions Grantor Trust, 217 A.D.3d 410, 412, 191 N.Y.S.3d 8 [1st Dept 2023] ).

We have considered plaintiffs' and petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.