Strong v. The City of New York

Background

Emanuel Strong, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The City of New York and employees or former employees of the New York City Department of Correction and the George R. Vierno Center. He alleged, among other things, that while employed as a correction officer, he was denied timely workers’ compensation and reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Civil Service Law, and other federal and state laws.

Judge John P. Cronan’s April 25, 2024 order directed the Clerk to issue summonses for the City and six individual defendants. Strong later filed a first amended complaint and submitted proofs of service for the City and four individual defendants. He then filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which added three individual defendants.

In an August 22, 2024 order, Magistrate Judge Gary Stein directed the Clerk to strike the first amended complaint and directed the defendants to state whether they consented to the second amended complaint. Strong objected, arguing that the first amended complaint was the pleading he had served and that striking it affected his ability to seek default judgment. He filed an interlocutory appeal, and the case was stayed. The Second Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had not issued a final order.

Requests and analysis

Strong primarily asked the court to reinstate the first amended complaint and enter default against the City and four individual defendants. The court concluded that default judgment was not warranted even if the first amended complaint had remained on the docket.

First, the proposed second amended complaint made the default request based on the earlier pleading moot because an amended complaint becomes the operative pleading. Second, the City appeared and requested an extension only two business days after its answer was due. The court stated that Strong was not entitled to default judgment because the delay was minimal and Strong had not shown prejudice. As to the individual defendants, Corporation Counsel was still determining whether it would represent them and was investigating Strong’s allegations.

Ruling

Judge Stein declined to vacate the August 22 order striking the first amended complaint and denied Strong’s request for entry of default judgment. The court permitted Strong to proceed with the second amended complaint. It directed the Clerk to lift the stay, docket the proposed second amended complaint as the operative pleading, and close Strong’s corresponding motion. The court also requested that Corporation Counsel state whether it would waive service for the individual defendants and whether it would represent them.

This order addressed pleadings, service, default, and case administration. It did not decide whether Strong’s underlying disability, workers’ compensation, or other claims were legally valid.