## Facts

- Kathie Sinisgallo and Steve Tsilimparis were tenants in a HUD-regulated public housing unit operated by the Town of Islip Housing Authority (IHA).
- Sinisgallo alleged paranoid schizophrenia, ongoing psychiatric treatment, and SSDI income.
- Tsilimparis alleged bipolar disorder, psychiatric care, and SSI income.
- After an altercation in which Tsilimparis struck a neighbor, IHA initiated administrative tenancy-termination proceedings and then filed a state-court summary holdover (eviction) action.
- Plaintiffs claimed the incident was connected to Tsilimparis’s disability and requested a reasonable accommodation as an alternative to eviction (including conditions tied to treatment or supports).
- Plaintiffs alleged IHA proceeded toward eviction without adequately considering accommodation options and that the termination grievance process lacked an impartial hearing officer.
- Plaintiffs filed a federal action asserting claims under the FHA, ADA Title II, Rehabilitation Act § 504, the Housing Act, and § 1983, and sought a preliminary injunction halting the state eviction case.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success that IHA violated the FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act by pursuing eviction without providing or meaningfully evaluating reasonable accommodations for disability-related conduct.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on a § 1983 procedural due process claim based on alleged bias or lack of impartiality in the termination hearing process.
3. Whether the Anti-Injunction Act or Younger abstention barred a federal preliminary injunction staying an ongoing state summary holdover proceeding.
4. Whether the preliminary-injunction factors (irreparable harm, merits showing, balance of hardships, and public interest) supported injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining IHA from proceeding with the state-court summary holdover action pending resolution of the federal case.
- The court found plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm from threatened loss of public housing.
- The court found plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act reasonable-accommodation claims.
- The court found plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of likely success on their § 1983 procedural due process claim regarding an allegedly biased hearing officer.
- The court held the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar relief because the injunction fit within an exception permitting injunctions authorized by federal civil-rights statutes.
- The court held Younger abstention was not warranted because the state holdover forum was not an adequate vehicle to fully litigate the federal disability-rights claims and the federal interest was substantial.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FHA, ADA Title II, and Rehabilitation Act § 504, a housing provider must make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, subject to limits such as undue burden, fundamental alteration, or unmitigable direct threat.
- Where eviction is sought for conduct plausibly linked to a tenant’s disability, the landlord’s failure to meaningfully consider accommodation requests before eviction can support liability under federal disability and fair-housing statutes.
- Loss of housing, particularly for low-income and disabled public-housing tenants, can constitute irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunctive relief.
- The Anti-Injunction Act permits federal courts to enjoin certain state proceedings when an injunction is authorized by Congress to protect federal rights.
- Younger abstention is inappropriate where the state proceeding does not provide an adequate opportunity to raise and litigate the federal claims for which federal adjudication is sought.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily stayed a public-housing eviction because the tenants showed irreparable harm and a likely violation of federal reasonable-accommodation duties under the FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act, while rejecting (on the existing record) a parallel due process theory and finding no Anti-Injunction Act or Younger bar to the injunction.


Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth., 865 F. Supp. 2d 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)