With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 594, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975). Notably, in the “interests of comity and federalism,” the Younger abstention doctrine requires federal courts to abstain from jurisdiction “whenever federal claims have been or could be presented in ongoing state judicial proceedings that concern important state interests.” Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 237-38, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (emphasis added). Thus, as with the second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, Younger abstention “does not apply when a plaintiffs federal claims cannot be presented in pending state proceedings.” Tellock v. Davis, No. 02-CV-4311, 2002 WL 31433589, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002) (citing Kirschner, 225 F.3d at 233); see also McNeill, 719 F.Supp. at 256 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, central to the Court’s analysis

A: 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
B: holding that the test for ineffective assistance of counsel in termination cases is generally the same as in criminal proceedings
C: 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
D: 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
D.