A contested development involving a proposed homeless shelter on Brooklyn’s 86th Street has reached a new stage. On July 7, 2026, developer 86 ST. NY LLC formally filed a Notice of Withdrawal and a Notice of Discontinuance with the court, withdrawing its emergency injunction motion (Order to Show Cause, or “OSC”) against multiple elected officials and community residents, as well as the underlying lawsuit in its entirety.
The case involved the legal threshold for injunctive relief, as well as the free speech and peaceable assembly rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, drawing significant attention from the local community and Chinese-language media.
Alpha Law accepted a pro bono referral coordinated through the office of City Council Member Susan Zhuang. Attorney Shengyang Wu represented Mr. Teng, the owner of a property adjacent to the development site. Because Mr. Teng, as a private resident, could not be represented by government counsel, Alpha Law submitted opposition papers on his behalf addressing First Amendment protections, the traditional public forum doctrine, the standard for injunctive relief, and the requirement that court orders be clearly defined.
Background
This case arises from a property at 2501 86th Street in Brooklyn. The developer planned to convert the building into a homeless shelter. After the plan was announced, nearby residents expressed varying degrees of concern, and the community subsequently held a series of peaceful demonstrations to voice their views on the project.
On March 26, 2026, the developer petitioned the New York State court for an emergency injunction, seeking to establish a fifteen-foot “buffer zone” barring residents, community members, and elected officials from the sidewalks, streets, and curbs surrounding the development site, and simultaneously filed suit against five elected officials and a number of community residents, including Mr. Teng.
Mr. Teng’s residence is adjacent to the development site. Had the injunction been granted as requested, it would have directly affected his ability to come and go from his home, park, and pick up and drop off family members on a daily basis.
Legal Issue: The Threshold for an Injunction
Under New York law, a party seeking an injunction must establish several legal elements, one of the most critical being that it would suffer “irreparable harm” — that is, harm that cannot be remedied through monetary compensation.
In the legal memorandum submitted on Mr. Teng’s behalf, Wu argued that the harms the developer claimed — including construction delays, lost business opportunities, and increased construction costs — were, in substance, calculable economic losses, and therefore did not meet the “irreparable harm” threshold required for an injunction.
Constitutional and Procedural Issues Raised in the Case
Beyond the standard for injunctive relief, the case also implicated the free speech and peaceable assembly rights protected by the First Amendment. Wu has long handled litigation involving First Amendment and public-interest issues, and previously served as one of the lead attorneys in U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, a case that drew nationwide attention.
The opposition papers filed on Mr. Teng’s behalf argued that public streets and sidewalks have long been recognized by U.S. courts as a “traditional public forum,” and that any court order restricting residents’ ability to express their views in public spaces must be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.
The opposition further argued that the injunction sought by the developer — which would have restricted residents, community members, and elected officials from entering specified public areas — lacked a clearly defined scope of prohibited conduct, making it difficult for ordinary residents to determine what was barred and risking infringement of their constitutionally protected rights.
At the same time, the other defendants raised their own distinct legal defenses, including arguments under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute and the doctrine of legislative immunity, contending that the litigation implicated public participation and political speech entitled to heightened legal protection.
On July 7, 2026, the developer formally filed a Notice of Withdrawal with the court, withdrawing the injunction motion. The developer filed a Notice of Discontinuance the same day, withdrawing the case in its entirety.
While the court did not reach a decision on the merits, the plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal meant that the injunction, which could have restricted residents’ rights, never took effect, and the case is now closed.
Community and Media Response
The case’s developments were reported by World Journal (“Developer of 86th Street Shelter Drops Suit Against Zhuang and Community Members,” July 8, 2026). In the report, Council Member Susan Zhuang stated that the developer’s withdrawal “marked a major and hard-won victory for the community,” and publicly thanked Alpha Law and Shengyang Wu for providing pro bono legal assistance to Mr. Teng. She further stated that Wu’s steadfast defense of residents’ constitutional rights played a key role in the developer’s decision to withdraw the lawsuit.
Alpha Law will continue to provide dedicated legal services to the community and to vigorously protect its clients’ legal rights.
About Shengyang Wu, Esq.
Shengyang Wu is a founding partner of Alpha Law LLP and is admitted to practice in New York State. He is a recipient of the New York Law Journal’s Pro Bono Award and has been recognized for nine consecutive years as a Super Lawyers honoree by Thomson Reuters (2018–2026).
Wu’s practice focuses primarily on personal injury litigation, including serious motor vehicle accident claims, premises liability for falls both inside and outside of buildings, construction-site accident disputes, and government tort liability cases. He is a referral panel attorney for the Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY). Wu also has extensive experience with construction contracts, project delay claims, and construction disputes.
In 2020, Wu, together with four other attorneys — Clay Zhu, Angus Ni, Cao Ying, and Yuan Gang — jointly led litigation opposing the federal government’s ban on WeChat use by Chinese Americans, U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump. The case ultimately resulted in a nationwide preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
