“plaintiffs right, if any, to litigate the issues in a state court appears more theoretical than real” and “therefore, that the factual basis on which to invoke the prohibition of § 2283 is lacking and the case is one in which the state proceedings may be enjoined ‘in aid of * * * (the district courts) jurisdiction’ ”). ’ By contrast, courts have found that where a plaintiff “could fully preserve in state court” as a defense the claims asserted in federal court, the second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable because the “pendency of the state court proceedings would not meaningfully threaten th[e] Court’s jurisdiction”. Sierra v. City of New York, 528 F.Supp.2d 465, 468 (S.D.N.Y.2008); Bosch v. Lamattina, No. 08-CV-238, 2008 WL 4820247, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008) (<HOLDING>); Armstrong v. Real Estate Intern., Ltd., No.
holding that because the pending eviction proceedings do not give plaintiffs an adequate forum to challenge termination of their section 8 assistance  under the exceptions to the doctrine of younger abstention and the antiinjunction act the court may stay housing court proceedings until the validity of the termination of plaintiffs assistance can be decided holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings because claims for rescission under tila can be brought in state court including as a defense to an eviction claim in housing court holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the suffolk county district court fifth district because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claims under the real estate settlement procedures act holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act