Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2025

Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:24-cv-04441
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ADA / DisabilityCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Puranik v. The Children’s Place, Judge Torres adopted the report, partly granted and partly denied dismissal, and denied transfer without prejudice.

Who this affects

Monika Puranik and The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC; the ruling requires Puranik to follow specified procedures if she proposes a second amended complaint.

What happened

In Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, Puranik alleges discriminatory conduct under federal, New York State, and New York City disability-rights laws.

A magistrate judge recommended partly granting and partly denying the company’s motion to dismiss and denying its motion to transfer the case. Because neither party objected, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Analisa Torres adopted the recommendation in full. She granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to transfer venue without prejudice, and ordered Puranik to file any proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2025, with specified supporting materials.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company · No. 1:24-cv-04441
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Sept. 2, 2025

Background

Monika Puranik sued The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, alleging, among other things, discriminatory conduct under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion does not describe the specific factual allegations or identify which claims were challenged in detail.

Report and Recommendation

The court had referred the defendant’s motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. Judge Figueredo recommended that the court grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss and deny the defendant’s motion to transfer venue. The parties were notified of their right to object, and the court extended the objection deadline, but no objections were filed.

Because there were no objections, Judge Torres reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. She found no clear error in Judge Figueredo’s analysis.

Ruling

Judge Torres adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The defendant’s motion to transfer venue was denied without prejudice, meaning the opinion expressly left that motion open to possible renewal.

The court directed Puranik to file any proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2025. Any proposed amendment must include either a redline or a description of the changes from the first amended complaint, along with a memorandum of law explaining how the amendments address the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation. The opinion does not specify which claims or deficiencies were affected by the partial dismissal ruling.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.