Daisy Cannady, Lucy Roman, Melinda Panell, Teresa Rodriguez, & Rebecca Booker, on Behalf of Themselves & Their Child. & Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, & the Coalition for the Homeless v. Gladys Valentin & Ronald Eric Wright, on Behalf of Themselves & Their Child. & Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Proposed Intervenors v. Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, George S. Gross, as Comm'r of the New York Human Resources Admin., & Cesar A. Perales, as Comm'r of the New York State Dep't of Soc. Servs., 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Daisy Cannady, Lucy Roman, Melinda Panell, Teresa Rodriguez, & Rebecca Booker, on Behalf of Themselves & Their Child. & Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, & the Coalition for the Homeless v. Gladys Valentin & Ronald Eric Wright, on Behalf of Themselves & Their Child. & Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Proposed Intervenors v. Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, George S. Gross, as Comm'r of the New York Human Resources Admin., & Cesar A. Perales, as Comm'r of the New York State Dep't of Soc. Servs., 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Goldstein v. Pataki (nyed, 2007-06-06) · Strongest negative: Application of Hörler (nysd, 1992-07-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Application of Hörler
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985) (iColorado River abstention permissible despite lack of identity between federal and state plaintiffs).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goldstein v. Pataki
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · confidence medium
Burford v. Sun Oil Co. Although federal courts “are under a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given them ... there are exceptional circumstances where a federal court may decline to decide a dispute properly before it.” Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985); see also West v. Vill. of Morrisville, 728 F.2d 130 , 135 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis Lee Pharmacy, Inc. v. Manhattan Central Capital Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 205, 211 (2d Cir.1985) (action arising out of electrical power blackout involving hundreds of claim and implicating significant local interests); Telesco v. Telesco Fuel and Masons’ Materials, Inc., 765 F.2d 356, 363 (2d Cir.1985) (case involving a novel state law theory); Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985) (case implicating New York City and State welfare policies).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson Controls, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance
E.D. Wis. · 1989 · confidence medium
Day v. Union Mines Inc., 862 F.2d 652, 660 (7th Cir.1988); Lumen Const., Inc. v. Brant Const. Co., Inc., 780 F.2d 691 , 696 (7th Cir.1985) (citing Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985)); Evans Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. The Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Cf. Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Co., 780 F.2d 691, 695-96 (7th Cir.1986) (stay proper where "state court litigation [would] probably eliminate the need for any further proceedings in federal court"); Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam) (affirming stay in action concerning emergency shelter for the homeless in favor of ongoing state proceedings).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Cf. Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Co., 780 F.2d 691, 695-96 (7th Cir.1986) (stay proper where “state court litigation [would] probably eliminate the need for any further proceedings in federal court”); Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam) (affirming stay in action concerning emergency shelter for the homeless in favor of ongoing state proceedings).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary R. Eitel v. Verla Sue Holland
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Co., 780 F.2d 691 , 696 (7th Cir.1985) (Moses Cone abstention appropriate in civil rights action); Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985) (abstention appropriate despite constitutional claims); Arkwright-Boston Mfrs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weiser v. Koch
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · confidence medium
However, although their problems are “serious, stubborn, and frustrating, [this court does] not believe that federal courts are more adequately suited to address them than the state courts,” Canaday v. Koch, 768 F.2d at 503, especially not in the first instance.
cited Cited "see" Amnex, Inc. v. Rowland
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Canaday v. Koch, 608 F.Supp. 1460, 1475 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Manna v. Greenburgh 11 School District
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Canaday v. Koch, 608 F.Supp. 1460, 1475 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (“Where the interests of the plaintiffs in each of the suits are congruent, Colorado River abstention may be appropriate notwithstanding the nonidentity of the parties”), aff’d, 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); accord Lumen Constr., Inc. v. Brant Constr.
discussed Cited "see" Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Company, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Canady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501 , 503 (2d Cir.1985). 27 Moreover, the state court proceeding has progressed considerably further than the federal case, which the district court noted had "not moved forward substantially." In their briefs and at oral argument, the parties informed us that dates for closing discovery and submitting pretrial orders have been set for early 1986. 4 Several hearings have been held as well as a pre-trial conference.
cited Cited "see" Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Co.
7th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Canady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501 , 503 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Windward Bora, LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Conn. 2009) (finding parties were “substantially the same” for the purposes of Colorado River abstention where the federal plaintiff was the successor- in-interest to the state court defendant); see also Canaday v. Koch, 608 F. Supp. 1460, 1475 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“Where the interests of the [parties] in each of the suits are congruent, Colorado River abstention may be appropriate notwithstanding the nonidentity of the parties.” (citation omitted)), aff’d, 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cohen v. Citibank, N.A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
While the Court recognizes that state courts may properly consider federal claims raised as defenses to state actions, even where federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 , 266 & n. 18, 102 S.Ct. 2421 , 2428-29 & n. 18, 72 L.Ed.2d 824 (1982); Andrea Theatres, Inc. v. Theatre Confections, Inc., 787 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir.1986); Banque Indosuez v. Pandeff, 193 A.D.2d 265 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 300, 302 (1st Dep’t 1993), Iv. to appeal dismissed, 83 N.Y.2d 907 , 614 N.Y.S.2d 388 , 637 N.E.2d 279 (1994), it also notes that state courts may not grant affirmative relief base…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marisol A. by Next Friend Forbes v. Giuliani
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 629 F.2d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Canaday v. Koch, 608 F.Supp. 1460, 1468 (S.D.N.Y.) (holding unclear state law, while alone insufficient reason for abstention, is compelling factor in favor of abstention when issues pertain to matters of predominantly local concern), aff'd, 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Merchants Nat. Bank v. Safrabank (California)
D. Kan. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Canaday v. Koch, 598 F.Supp. 1139, 1148 (E.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd, 768 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1985); Southern Marine Research, Inc. v. Jetronic Industries, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 1192, 1194 (D.Conn.1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Day v. Union Mines Inc.
7th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lumen Constr., 780 F.2d at 696, citing Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985); Evans Transp.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Day v. Union Mines Inc.
7th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lumen Constr., 780 F.2d at 696, citing Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985); Evans Transp.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Best v. City of New York
unknown court · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“In cases of concurrent state and federal jurisdictions it is axiomatic that the federal courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.’ ” Telesco v. Telesco Fuel & Masons’ Materials, Inc., 765 F.2d 356, 360 (2d Cir.1985) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 , 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)); see also Cannady v. Valentin, 768 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daisy Cannady, Lucy Roman, Melinda Panell, Teresa Rodriguez, and Rebecca Booker, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Children and Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and the Coalition for the Homeless
v.
Gladys Valentin and Ronald Eric Wright, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Children and Other Dependent Minors in Their Care, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Proposed Intervenors v. Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, George S. Gross, as Commissioner of the New York Human Resources Administration, and Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services
1416.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Aug 7, 1985.
768 F.2d 501
Published

768 F.2d 501

Daisy CANNADY, Lucy Roman, Melinda Panell, Teresa Rodriguez,
and Rebecca Booker, on behalf of themselves and their
children and other dependent minors in their care, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and the Coalition
for the Homeless, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Gladys VALENTIN and Ronald Eric Wright, on behalf of
themselves and their children and other dependent minors in
their care, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Proposed Intervenors, Appellants,
v.
Edward I. KOCH, as Mayor of the City of New York, George S.
Gross, as Commissioner of the New York Human Resources
Administration, and Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Social Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1416, Docket 85-7361.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued June 21, 1985.
Decided Aug. 7, 1985.

Jay Greenfield, New York City (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Robert M. Hayes, Coalition for the Homeless, Washington Square Legal Services, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants and proposed intervenors-appellants.

Antonia Levine, New York City (Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Leonard Koerner, Susan D. Wagner, Susan Elsen, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Koch and Gross.

Howard L. Zwickel, New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Lillian Z. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, New York City), for defendant-appellee Perales.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

[*~501]1

The sole question before us is whether the district court, 608 F.Supp. 1460, abused its discretion in staying this action pending resolution of a pending state court action, McCain, et al. v. Koch et al., 127 Misc.2d 23, 484 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.).

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs, five homeless families with children and a not-for-profit corporation representing the homeless, filed this complaint alleging that the individual plaintiffs have been denied "lawful emergency housing" by the defendant state and city officials. The complaint requests: 1) that plaintiffs be certified, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, as representatives of the class of all homeless families in New York City that have been or will be denied emergency shelter; 2) a declaration that defendants' failure to provide plaintiffs with emergency shelter violates federal and state constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law; and 3) an injunction requiring defendants to provide "lawful emergency housing to meet the needs of plaintiffs." Two other homeless individuals moved for intervention and other relief.

3

Plaintiffs assert three claims to support the relief they request. The first rests on a maze of federal and state statutes and regulations governing emergency aid to needy families. The second arises from a consent judgment in Callahan, et al. v. Carey, et al., Index No. 4258 2/79 (Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co.), wherein the defendants agreed to provide emergency housing to homeless men. The court subsequently held in Eldredge v. Koch, 118 Misc.2d 163, 459 N.Y.S.2d 960 (Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co.), rev'd on other grounds, 98 A.D.2d 675, 469 N.Y.S.2d 744 (1983), that under the equal protection clause, equivalent facilities must be made available to homeless women as well. Plaintiffs here urge that the equal protection clause also requires the provision of equivalent facilities to homeless families. The third claim is based upon Article XVII Sec. 1 of the New York State Constitution and numerous provisions of New York's Social Services Law.

4

Defendants moved for an order staying further proceedings in this case pending resolution of the McCain action in state court. In McCain, fourteen homeless plaintiffs sued various governmental officials, including some of the defendants here, seeking class certification and a preliminary injunction ordering a complete overhaul of New York City's system for providing emergency shelter to homeless families. As part of the requested relief, they sought an order "locating and making available additional emergency housing units within New York City so that all families with children in need of emergency housing can immediately obtain such housing in New York City." The state court denied the requested preliminary injunction and class certification, but issued an order requiring the defendants to comply with certain minimum standards in any housing that was provided and to follow certain procedural safeguards. Appeals by both sides are to be heard by the Appellate Division at its September term.

5

Judge Leisure stayed the federal action, but provided that the parties could return to federal court after McCain is decided. He denied the intervenors' motions as moot. Plaintiffs then brought this expedited appeal.

DISCUSSION

6

As a general rule, federal courts are under a "virtually unflagging obligation * * * to exercise the jurisdiction given them", but there are exceptional circumstances where a federal court may decline to decide a dispute properly before it. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-18, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246-47, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). In a thirty-one page opinion, Judge Leisure thoroughly analyzed the abstention principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943), Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation, 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) and concluded that the issues presented in this case "would better be decided in the state system." We cannot say that Judge Leisure abused his discretion in concluding that abstention was appropriate in this case. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 205, 210 (2d Cir.1985).

7

We are neither blind nor insensitive to the serious plight of the homeless in New York City and other cities throughout our country. That these plaintiffs seek housing for homeless families only underscores the critical social and economic problems at hand. But while these problems are serious, stubborn, and frustrating, we do not believe that federal courts are more adequately suited to address them than state courts. Moreover, it is unlikely that a federal court would give relief more promptly than the state court. In Judge Leisure's words, we "do not comprehend the logic that says a federal court can familiarize itself with the intricate workings of the City's and State's welfare policymaking, unravel the various unsettled state law issues and fashion appropriate relief more easily and quickly than the state system can rule on its own law."

8

In short, we are confident that the state court can reach a prompt, fair, and correct resolution of the difficult questions raised in the state action, thereby answering most if not all of the questions raised in the federal action. Moreover, we fear that intervention by a federal court at this juncture might only delay a prompt resolution of this dispute.

[*~502]9

Affirmed.