in the New York state courts. There is little easelaw on. the burden a plaintiff must meet to show that they can not raise t he availability of an Article 78 proceeding is not relevant to the Court’s Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention analysis, and (2) under the current case law in New York, the Plaintiffs ability to litigate their federal disability claims in the state court eviction proceeding is “more theoretical than real”, and that they have met their burden of showing that the state court is unlikely to hear their federal disability claims for purposes of Younger abstention. 1. As to the Availability of an Article 78 Proceeding The Defendants contend that, because the FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims can be raised in an Article 78 upp.2d 686, 688 (N.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3613(B)(2)); Sokoya v.
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court recognizing the general rule that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from federal courts  holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that because the fha explicitly provides that an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust parallel administrative remedies provided through hud before commencing a federal action it would seem logical that if an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust hud remedies before filing a federal action he or she should not have to exhaust local remedies