Procedural Limits on Injunctive Relief: Mootness and Venue in Stay Motions under CPLR
Matter of Town of Colonie v. City of New York (2025 NYSlipOp 02256)

Introduction

The Appellate Division, Third Department, in Matter of Town of Colonie v. City of New York addressed two interrelated procedural issues arising from a local dispute over the housing of asylum seekers and refugees. In late 2022 and early 2023, New York City, under Mayor Eric Adams’s Executive Order No. 224, declared a state of emergency due to the influx of asylum seekers. The City arranged temporary housing for these individuals in counties outside its limits. In response, Albany County issued Emergency Order No. 1 of 2023 prohibiting local hotels and other lodging facilities from contracting with municipalities to provide housing to migrants without a county license.

Surestay Plus by Best Western Albany Airport (the “hotel”) contracted with the City to house 24 asylum seekers at its facility in the Town of Colonie, prompting the Town and its supervisor to commence a combined CPLR Article 78 proceeding and declaratory action seeking to enjoin the transfers and declare the hotel’s operation unlawful. After Supreme Court denied a preliminary injunction and vacated a temporary stay of a parallel justice-court action against the hotel, the hotel appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s order in full. First, it held that the request for a preliminary injunction barring Town interference with the hotel’s housing of asylum seekers was moot. The Albany County emergency order had expired, the City’s relocation program had ceased, and the hotel was no longer housing migrants. Second, the court rejected the hotel’s challenge to the denial of a stay of the Town’s justice-court action. It found that a stay motion under CPLR 2201 must be made in the very court where the action is pending (here, the Town Justice Court), not in Supreme Court. Because the hotel had not applied for a stay in the Justice Court, Supreme Court properly denied relief.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Standing and Mootness Principles
  • Matter of Marxuach v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 211 AD3d 1442 (3d Dept 2022): Established that courts lack jurisdiction over moot controversies.
  • Matter of Albany-Schoharie-Schenectady-Saratoga Bd. of Coop. Edu. Servs. v. Rosa, 234 AD3d 1034 (3d Dept 2025): Reinforced that an appeal is moot when no live issue remains.
  • Owner Operator Ind. Drivers Assn., Inc. v. Karas, 188 AD3d 1313 (3d Dept 2020): Declared that injunctive relief must affect parties’ rights to stay live.
  • National Energy Marketers Assn. v. New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 167 AD3d 88 (3d Dept 2018): Held moot injunctive requests when the challenged regulation was repealed.
• Venue for Stay Motions
  • Eber-NDC, LLC v. Star Indus., Inc., 32 AD3d 1251 (4th Dept 2006): Confirmed that a party must seek a stay under CPLR 2201 in the action’s own forum.
  • Matter of Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. People, 251 AD2d 1014 (4th Dept 1998): Applied the same principle to administrative proceedings.
  • Safier v. Cohl, 95 AD2d 933 (3d Dept 1983): Recognized circumstances in which cross-forum stays could arise, but distinguished here.
• Rules on Consolidation and Temporary Restraining Orders
  • CPLR 602(b) and 326(a): Permit Supreme Court to stay lower-court actions when deciding consolidation requests; the hotel did not challenge the consolidation denial.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in two steps:

1. Mootness of Preliminary Injunction Request
   By its own terms Albany County’s emergency order expired before argument. Moreover, intervening facts—cessation of New York City’s relocation program and the hotel’s discontinuation of migrant housing—eliminated any prospect of Town interference. Under well-settled principles, once the underlying dispute evaporates, injunctive relief becomes “moot,” and judicial resources are conserved by dismissal.
2. Procedural Venue for Stay Application
   The hotel sought a stay of the Town Justice Court action after its motion to consolidate was denied. It invoked CPLR 2201, but that statute demands application to “the court in which the action is pending.” Because Supreme Court is not the Town Justice Court, it lacked authority to grant a CPLR 2201 stay. The proper course would have been to file a motion in the Justice Court itself. Supreme Court’s denial was therefore correct.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Law

This decision underscores two important procedural guardrails:

• Mootness Doctrine Reinforced: Even high-profile injunctive requests collapse if the challenged regulation expires or the facts change. Litigants seeking injunctions must act swiftly before circumstances render relief unavailable.
• Venue Specificity for Stay Motions: Parties may not shop forums by seeking stays under CPLR 2201 in a different court. Applications for stays must be made to the very tribunal before which the action is pending. This curbs cross-forum maneuvering and preserves each court’s authority and docket.

Future litigants will need to heed these boundaries or risk summary dismissals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mootness: When an issue has already been resolved by events outside the suit—such as the expiration of an emergency order—courts will not entertain further litigation on that point.
• Preliminary Injunction: A temporary court order intended to preserve the status quo until the full case is decided. It requires a “live” controversy and actionable risk of harm.
• CPLR 2201 (Stay of Proceedings): Authorizes a court to halt ("stay") a pending case to await the outcome of related litigation or events—but only if the stay motion is made in that court.
• CPLR 326(a) & 602(b) (Consolidation Stays): Allow Supreme Court, during consolidation motions, to pause related lower-court actions. Once consolidation is denied, these stays expire.

Conclusion

Matter of Town of Colonie v. City of New York clarifies two procedural imperatives in New York litigation. First, an injunction becomes moot when the underlying emergency or condition terminates. Second, and equally critical, a stay application under CPLR 2201 must be made to the court where the action is pending. By affirming these limits, the Appellate Division promotes judicial efficiency, respects the sovereignty of lower tribunals, and channels parties into the correct procedural avenues. Trial lawyers and litigants should take heed: timing and forum matter as much as substantive force in securing—and sustaining—injunctive and stay relief.