Anderson v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-07113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Anderson v. City of New York, Judge Cote ordered defense counsel to clarify whether Albert Otero was a city employee before default proceedings could continue.
The order directly affected Albert Otero, Shalicia Anderson, and defense counsel handling the case. It required defense counsel to provide information before any default-judgment proceedings against Otero could proceed.
What happened
In Anderson v. City of New York, Shalicia Anderson alleged that she was arrested and injured during a visit to a New York City Human Resources Administration office. She brought a claim under a federal civil-rights law against the City and several individuals, including Albert Otero.
Anderson attempted to serve Otero by delivering the lawsuit papers to the Human Resources Administration’s legal office. A clerk later entered Otero’s default, and Anderson sought permission to request a default judgment. Defense counsel said Otero was not a New York City employee, raising doubt about whether service at the city office was valid.
The court found it premature to proceed with a default judgment while those service questions remained unresolved. Judge Cote ordered defense counsel to file a declaration or affidavit explaining the basis for the statement that Otero was not a city employee by July 7, 2020.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07113
- Denise Cote
- June 30, 2020
Background
Shalicia Anderson’s amended complaint alleged, among other things, that she was arrested and injured during a visit to the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint identified Albert Otero as “a security guard or peace officer assigned to the HRA” at the HRA location on 10th Avenue.
Anderson filed an affidavit stating that Otero had been served on August 22, 2019. The papers were delivered to Rhonda Joseph, a subpoena clerk in the HRA Legal Affairs Office at 4 World Trade Center. The affidavit stated that Joseph confirmed the location was Otero’s actual place of business.
At an initial pretrial conference, defense counsel represented that Otero was not a New York City employee. No attorney had appeared for Otero, and no answer had been filed on his behalf. The court ordered Anderson to explain why the claims against Otero should not be dismissed. Anderson then obtained a clerk’s certificate of default and sought permission to file a motion for default judgment.
Service dispute
The court directed Anderson to address whether service through the HRA Legal Affairs Office would have been effective if Otero was not an HRA employee. Anderson argued that the affidavit was preliminary proof of proper service under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(2), which allows delivery at the defendant’s actual place of business under specified conditions.
The opinion explains that an actual place of business must be a location where the defendant is physically present regularly and regularly conducts business. The court noted that Anderson’s complaint alleged that Otero was assigned to a different HRA location, not the World Trade Center office. The court also noted defense counsel’s representation that Otero was not a New York City employee.
Ruling
The court did not decide whether service on Otero was valid and did not enter a default judgment. It ruled that moving forward with default-judgment proceedings would be premature because substantial doubts remained about proper service. Judge Denise Cote ordered defense counsel to file, by July 7, 2020, a declaration or affidavit explaining the basis for the representation that Otero was not a New York City employee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.