Article 78 proceeding “is not an ‘appeal’ but rather a new proceeding challenging a decision by an administrative body or officer”, the Court is not precluded from enjoining the summary holdover proceeding or divested of jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ federal claims merely because an Article 78 remedy is available. Meachem v. Wing, 77 F.Supp.2d 431, 442 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7804 (characterizing Article 78 proceeding as a “special proceeding” and specifying where such a proceeding may be “brought”); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7801 (providing that an Article 78 proceeding cannot be used to challenge a determination that “can be adequately reviewed by appeal to a court or to some other body”)); cf. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, it is well-settled that a plaintiff
holding that because the federal plaintiffs claims were essentially derivative of the state defendants younger abstention applied holding that to avoid younger abstention plaintiffs must demonstrate that state law bars the effective consideration of their federal claims holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process holding that because the plaintiff had not exhausted his state court appeals abstention was appropriate because virtually all of the evils at which younger is directed would inhere in federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate proceedings holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional