Sabini v. Dept. for the Aging
- Barbara Moses
- 1:24-cv-07610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sabini v. Dept. for the Aging, Magistrate Judge Moses accepted a pro se filing but set limits on further briefing.
Patricia T. Sabini and the Dept. for the Aging; the order allows the defendant an optional response by August 20, 2025 and bars further submissions afterward.
What happened
In Sabini v. Dept. for the Aging, Patricia T. Sabini filed a notice of motion and declaration, which the court treated as a proposed additional response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The court said additional responses are normally allowed only when a reply raises a new argument. It found that Sabini’s filing did not address any new argument, but accepted it because she was representing herself.
The defendant may file an optional response by August 20, 2025, and Judge Barbara Moses said no further submissions supporting or opposing the motion to dismiss will be accepted.
The detailed version
- Sabini v. Dept. for the Aging · No. 1:24-cv-07610
- Barbara Moses
- Aug. 6, 2025
What the court considered
The court reviewed Patricia T. Sabini’s “Notice of Motion” and supporting declaration. The court treated those materials as a proposed sur-reply, meaning an additional filing responding to the defendant’s reply in support of its pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
Ruling
The court explained that additional responses are normally permitted only when they address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. It determined that Sabini’s proposed filing did not identify or address any such new argument. Even so, because Sabini was proceeding without a lawyer, the court accepted the filing.
Further filings
The defendant may file an optional response no later than August 20, 2025. After that, the court will accept no further submissions supporting or opposing the pending motion to dismiss.
What the order did not decide
This order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims. It addressed only whether the additional filing would be accepted and whether the parties could submit more briefing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.