Brooks v. State of New York
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brooks v. State of New York, Judge Briccetti ordered address information and extended the service deadline in two related actions.
Joseph A. Brooks, Wanda J. Duryea, defendants Timothy Finnegan, Timothy P. Gould, and James Wollman, and the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
What happened
Brooks v. State of New York and a related action were brought by Joseph A. Brooks and Wanda J. Duryea, who were proceeding without lawyers and without paying filing fees. The U.S. Marshals Service tried to serve the defendants at a New York State Police facility, but the service documents were returned because the defendants were no longer there.
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to provide addresses where the defendants could be served by January 13, 2023. The court also extended each plaintiff’s deadline to serve the defendants to February 13, 2023, and said either plaintiff should ask for more time if service was not completed by then.
Judge Briccetti’s order addressed service of the lawsuits and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. State of New York · No. 7:22-cv-06283
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Joseph A. Brooks and Wanda J. Duryea filed two related actions against Timothy Finnegan, Timothy P. Gould, and James Wollman. The opinion states that both plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers and without paying filing fees, which entitled them to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
The Marshals Service attempted service at the New York State Police Troop K, Zone 3 barracks in Somers, New York. The service receipts were returned unexecuted, meaning service was not completed, and indicated that the defendants were no longer located at that facility.
Order
The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to provide, by January 13, 2023, the addresses where the defendants could be served. The court also extended each plaintiff’s deadline to serve the defendants to February 13, 2023. The order stated that if either plaintiff could not serve the complaint by that date, that plaintiff should request an extension of time.
The order concerns service of process—the formal delivery of a lawsuit to the defendants—and does not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.