Skorupska v. 525 West 52 Property Owner LLC

Background

Bernadette Skorupska, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims alleging housing discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The named defendants were 525 West 52 Property Owner LLC, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), Phipps Housing Development Corporation, and Taconic Management LLC.

The court had granted Skorupska permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This status is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The order therefore addressed both an initial screening issue involving HPD and the procedures for serving the defendants.

HPD and the City of New York

The court held that HPD, as an agency of the City of New York, is not an entity that can generally be sued. It therefore dismissed Skorupska’s claims against HPD under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Because the complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City, the court construed the complaint as asserting those claims against the City of New York. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the clerk was directed to amend the caption by replacing HPD with the City. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might later assert. The order did not decide whether Skorupska’s underlying discrimination claims were legally or factually valid.

Service of the remaining defendants

Because Skorupska was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The court extended the usual service period so that the deadline would be 90 days after the summonses were issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. The court stated that Skorupska should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.

The clerk was directed to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service on 525 West 52 Property Owner LLC, Phipps Housing Development Corporation, Taconic Management Company, and the City of New York. Skorupska was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court warned that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed Skorupska’s claims against HPD, directed the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and ordered preparation for Marshals Service on the City and the other listed defendants. The order was a procedural screening and service order; it did not resolve the merits of the alleged housing discrimination.