On May 7th, the Brooklyn Supreme Court is set to hear a lawsuit brought by a developer against two Chinese homeowners in the vicinity of the homeless shelter on Coyle Street, number 2134. The defendants’ attorney, Benjamin Xue, representing the two neighboring homeowners, submitted a legal memorandum to the court on the evening of May 2nd opposing any injunction or legal remedies sought by the plaintiff.
According to documents, the plaintiff, Coyle 2134 Housing Development Fund Corporation, is currently the owner of the property at 2134 Coyle Street. However, they only acquired the property on December 17, 2024, from Coyle Street Owner LLC, who themselves obtained ownership on May 23, 2024, from Coyle Properties LLC.
Back in August 2023, before Coyle Owner LLC owned the property, they contacted Ms. Liang, one of the Chinese homeowners, and another homeowner via letter, requesting access to their backyard to install temporary protective structures for construction. The letter claimed the purpose was to build “affordable housing” and included a permission agreement to be signed. However, attorney Xue pointed out that at the time, Coyle Owner LLC did not own the property and had undisclosed plans to establish a homeless shelter instead.
Under continued legal threats and pressure over several months, the Chinese homeowners ultimately signed the so-called permission agreement in December 2023. However, attorney Xue argues that the signing was done under “duress and based on false representations”, lacking any form of permit fees, clear construction plans, and safety measures, rendering it invalid.
Attorney Xue highlights that the “Order to Show Cause” (OSC) filed by the plaintiff attempts to request the court to immediately prevent the defendants from obstructing their access to the neighboring property for construction. However, the plaintiff’s construction project has been under a stop-work order from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) since November 7, 2024, due to unresolved “major violations,” with a related hearing scheduled for October 28, 2025. The plaintiff also has not obtained the necessary demolition permit and is not expected to start construction for several months.
In this context, attorney Xue emphasizes that the plaintiff’s claim of “urgency” in this case is unfounded, and the court should not issue a temporary injunction based on unexecutable construction plans.
Furthermore, attorney Xue further points out that the plaintiff simultaneously applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment, all of which are ultimate remedies that the court should decide after hearing the case, rather than issuing rash judgments before trial. Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment and alleged breach causes are repetitive, both seeking to enforce the permission agreement and allow entry into the neighboring property, constituting duplicative requests that should be dismissed.
In supporting their motion for an injunction, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence or legal basis demonstrating the need for emergency or exceptional measures.
Apart from the legal aspects, the defendants also mentioned the strong community opposition to the plaintiff’s project, with previous developers using affordable housing as a pretext to persuade neighboring residents to make concessions, only to switch to building a homeless shelter, displaying a “bait-and-switch” behavior. The attorney argues that the plaintiff’s own actions delayed the project but attempted to shift blame onto the neighbors, further highlighting the lack of legitimacy in their claims.
The court is scheduled to hear this case on May 7th, and community members will attend as observers. Later that day at 1:30 pm in front of City Hall, a rally will be held to continue expressing opposition to the homeless shelter project to the city government and the public.