With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Anti-Injunction Act precludes the Court from enjoining the summary holdover proceeding. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they could bring their claims in an Article 78 proceeding. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the existence of an Article 78 proceeding is irrelevant because they are not required to assert their federal claims in an Article 78 proceeding. The Court agrees. The relevant focus of the Anti-Injunction Act and the Younger abstention doctrine are the federal court’s powers and limitations with respect to “ongoing” state proceedings. Because not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing an FHA, ADA, or Rehabilitation Act claim in federal court. See Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 689 F.2d 391, 394 n. 3 (2d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Advocacy and Res. Ctr. v. Town of Chazy, 62

A: holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea
B: holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court
C: 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
D: holding that a party challenging a municipalitys zoning decision under the fha does not need to exhaust administrative remedies even where as here the reasonable accommodation test is invoked
D.