Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources…
Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-07747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration, Judge Failla transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because Queens was the more convenient venue.
Maurene Stennette's case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the order did not resolve the merits of her claims.
What happened
In Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration, Maurene Stennette, representing herself, claimed that a New York City agency mishandled subsidized rent payments for tenants in her Queens rental property. She alleged that checks were mailed to the property instead of her Georgia residence, one tenant fraudulently cashed them, and the property was damaged.
The court found that both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York were legally proper places for the case. It concluded that the Eastern District was more convenient because the property and many of the events, documents, and witnesses were likely located in Queens.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and directed the clerk to close the case in the Southern District. The court also said that a summons would not issue there and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources… · No. 1:22-cv-07747
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Maurene Stennette filed this action without a lawyer and sought damages from the entity identified in the complaint as the “New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration.” The court understood that defendant to be the New York City Human Resources Administration. The court construed the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State-law claims.
Stennette’s allegations concerned subsidized rental payments for tenants living in her rental property in Queens County, New York. She alleged that the Human Resources Administration or another New York City agency failed to investigate the tenants’ backgrounds, mailed rent-payment checks to the rental property instead of to her residence in Georgia, and failed to act after she reported that a tenant had forged and fraudulently cashed the checks. She also alleged that she had to litigate to evict the tenants and that they seriously damaged the property before leaving.
Venue analysis
Venue is the federal judicial district where a case may properly be heard. The court explained that the Human Resources Administration, like New York City agencies generally, was considered to reside in both the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York for venue purposes. Therefore, both districts were proper venues under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
The court also found that the Eastern District was a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the alleged events occurred there and the property involved in the case was located in Queens County, which is within that district.
Transfer ruling
Even when venue is proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the location of the alleged events and property and stated that relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be in the Eastern District. It therefore concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order states that a summons would not issue from the Southern District, that the action was closed in that court, and that a copy of the order would be mailed to Stennette. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The order did not decide whether Stennette’s underlying claims were legally valid.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.