a tangential issue in the instant action, and this Court has heretofore played no role in deciding the Building’s fate. The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs in favor of abstention. The fifth factor, whether state or federal law supplies the rule of decision, weighs in favor of abstention. Cf. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25, 103 S.Ct. 927 (noting that “[a]s all diversity suits raise issues of state law, their presence does not weigh heavily in favor of surrender of jurisdiction”). Here, there are only issues of state law, specifically the Religious Corporations Law and the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. No federal question is implicated. Thus, this factor slightly favors abstention. See Wiggin & Co. v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 66 F.Supp.2d 549, 554 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>). The sixth factor is the adequacy of
holding that because the federal plaintiffs claims were essentially derivative of the state defendants younger abstention applied holding that the question is not whether the party opposing abstention can demonstrate that the federal forum is a better or more convenient forum but whether the inconvenience of the federal forum is so great that this factor points towards abstention holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional holding that the absence of a federal question still slightly favors abstention