years has been occupied transiently that is by people renting rooms for less than thirty days it has all the safety features required for buildings that have trendy and occupants and it is configured for transit and occupants for example it's rooms not of kitchens and the bathrooms are generally shared and accessible through a common hallway the city of course knows all this and it does not dispute that the helms building has been used for transient occupancy for decades if the city itself has taken advantage of this fact to house homeless people on a transient basis at this very building the city is also assessed and collect thousands of dollars in hotel occupancy taxes from the broadway hotel in short there operating lawfully getting only sixteen days after that ruling the city star towns with twenty seven summonses alleging that it had violated the so called air b n b law for advertising room rentals at the broadway hotel the air b n b la however as its name suggests was enacted to prevent individuals from renting out their residential units to tourists for nightly or their apartments were designed in configured for permanent occupancy and did not have the required fire and safety standards transiently occupied buildings plainly that is not an issue with the broadway hotel the city's service of the summons this was particularly egregious coming only eight days after its own did miscreated agencies ruling that helms could legally use the broadway hotel for trance and occupancy the city freely admit that it made a strategic decision not to seek reconsideration of its agency's ruling or challenge it in state court threw an article seventy eight proceeding instead it decided to simply ignore the agency didn't decision and barrage helms with air b n b summonses in the hopes of tainting more favorably can see determination by redoing the administrative process a nd time was based on the very finding by the city's own agency that helms its operation of the building for transient occupancy was legally permissible a finding that helms believes and still believes is legally binding on the city a week after this action was filed the city of new york held a separate nuisance action against towns in state court and asserted at the motion to dismiss stage and now again an appeal but this federal action should be dismissed in favor of the state court action under the younger  dr helms took the position that abstention was not triggered because the relevant state issued the permissible use of the product and already by the administrative agency and thus there were no state court proceedings that this action would be interfering with we submit that there are three fundamental issues presented on this appeal and each of them requires a reversal of the district  judgment to the city st the district court collateral estoppel ruling was wrong longstanding principles of collateral estoppel bar the city from religion getting the same issue with identical parties for a nd time if the court reverses on this ground as it should then the only issue for the district court will be the constitutional issues surrounding the issue and here in the some of those nd if this court agrees with the district court in collateral estoppel and finds that those principles do not gating the transit use issue then younger most certainly applies here and we agree with the city that the application of younger is mandatory if collateral estoppel is not applied youngers triggered and the district court should have abstained as to the issue of transit use given that the state court has now held up thirteen day hearing with extensive expert testimony on the state law issue there is a real risk that there will be divergent decisions on important matters of statutory interpretation and rd if the court believes that the district court was correct on both the collateral estoppel issue and the extension issue then we believe that the case must be remanded for trial on the transit use issue because there are plainly contested issues of fact as to whether helms is permitted to use its building for transient occupancy indeed the state court has already found this to be the case in ordering the hearings to resolve the factual discrepancies that play turnings of these three  issues it is notable that the city begins and focus is brief not on addressing the district court summary judgment ruling but rather by asserting that the court should quote the fun on the alternative ground of younger abstention unquote flawed approach seeks to use younger as both a sword and shield to insulate the district court summary judgment decision from review we submit that is a legal matter this argument is simply wrong if this court affirmed the district court's decision of the city request the court would not be abstaining it would be validating the district court's decision on the merits contrary to the interests of comedy and restraint that underpin younger accordingly if the court determines t then the district court decision must be vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case under younger in the event that the court determines to review the merits of the district court's decision let me turn to the issue of collateral estop constitute a change in the legal landscape of the magnitude required for the application of the exception terri is a substantial evidence case involving of comments of an agency decision by an intermediate appellate court  decision cited by the city reflect a sea change in the legal landscape each one involved a differently worded certificate of occupancy and each one blindly cited to the terry lee decision as authoritative  in towns asking for a permanent grant of immunity from else asked only that it should not be required people litigating with the city over and over concerning the meaning of its particular certificate of occupancy a particular  in the absence of collateral stoffel material issues abound on the question of whether helms a certificate of occupancy allows for transit use the state court in considering this very issue for purposes of deciding the city's parliamentary injunction helped thirteen days of hearings including testimony from three expert witness which were put forth by the city regarding the legal issues permitted under the helm certificate of occupancy justice the august explained the development of this record was necessary quote in order to decide factual discrepancies and results by testimony or documentation certain discrepancies in the certificate of occupancy the district court here should have done the same in from th decision below should be reversed on clatter will stop the grounds or if not it must be vacated and younger abstention grounds and if this court were to disagree with us and hold that neither collateral estoppel nor extension applies the district court erred by resolving the resulting district court said was that it was relying on the m d l to an amendment and that's what terry lee gave the one line about in dicta that everyone has cited to our position is and in fact the city's own agency found that those amendments regardless of their applications don't apply to this building because this in this building the c e o itself does not say it's a class a building and  the language of the statute were st two buildings that were being used at that time of the statute for permanent residency this one was not so whatever terry lee says about the two thousand and ten amendments it doesn't have application to our particular other buildings do but the supreme court in the stouffer case said look when you have where you have mutual collateral estoppel then those considerations are not valid ones to protect prevent it because otherwise you know in terms of non mutual collateral estoppel that's a different issue  rented on a nightly basis to tourist district court should abstain from hearing the case to avoid interference with ongoing and forstmann proceedings in state court and this court should resolve the appeal in favor of abstention if the court chooses to reach the merits however it still should a the court held that the district court should have result the case on the grounds the extension rather than reaching the merits and described it as the city was urging abstention merely as an alternative grounds for doing precisely what the district court did dismiss the complaint  courts one of the docket it's not possible always to to bring an appeal from at the adverse ruling and when there's been intervening change the law that ruling should stand in perpetuity as a shield against enforcement under the correct interpretation of the law reflects the district that this judge is under mission pression and ultimately the state courts will get it right just as they did entirely i'm happy to take any questions that the court should instance then the proper course would be to vacate the lower court opinion and remand for dismissal and the difference between this case and the university club case is that in that case the court dismissed at the outset of the case it was a twelve b six case the court dismissed the case without prejudice and the nd circuit then said you know word it's an upturn adik ground because we're doing precisely what the district court did which was to dismiss the complaint here we're in a different posture because judgment was entered in favor of the city if the court agrees that abstention is appropriate here then what should happen again we would say that terri is the is not a change in the last it's a substantial evidence to susan as the state court has has indicated and as we indicated in our papers the state court has actually said that it did and it's not binding and it there are clearly issues of fact here the experts that the city put on in the state court case said you have to look at the certificate of occupancy as a whole which requires a hearing as the state court has held fact the district court specifically recognized that the certificate of occupancy here does not use the word class a dwelling as the one in terry and he did and i'm happy completed our arguments for us today we were journal court