Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2023

Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources…

Full caption

Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-07747
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
9
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration, Judge Failla transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Maurene Stennette must direct the case’s filings and proof of service to the Eastern District of New York; the Human Resources Administration remains the defendant in the transferred action.

What happened

In Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration, Maurene Stennette sued over alleged problems involving subsidized rent payments, forged checks, tenant screening, and damage to rental property in Queens County, New York.

The Southern District of New York found that venue was proper there but that the Eastern District of New York was more convenient because important events and the property were in Queens. It transferred the case there under the federal venue-transfer law. The court also directed Stennette to refile her proof of service on the Eastern District’s docket and use that docket for future filings.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the transfer, closed the case in the Southern District, directed that no summons issue there, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide whether Stennette’s claims were legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources… · No. 1:22-cv-07747
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Jan. 24, 2023

Background

Maurene Stennette filed a self-represented lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The court understood the defendant named in the complaint to be the New York City Human Resources Administration. The complaint sought damages and was construed as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York-law claims.

Stennette alleged that the Human Resources Administration, or another New York City agency, paid subsidized rent for tenants living in a Queens County property that she owned. She alleged that rent checks were mailed to the property rather than to her residence in Georgia, that a tenant forged and cashed the checks, and that the agency did not act after she reported the alleged fraud. She also alleged that she had to litigate to evict the tenants and that they seriously damaged the property.

Transfer to the Eastern District of New York

The Southern District explained that both it and the Eastern District of New York were proper venues because the defendant was treated as residing in both districts for venue purposes. The Eastern District was also a proper venue because a substantial part of the alleged events occurred there and the property was located in Queens County.

Applying the federal law governing transfers for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the court concluded that transfer was appropriate. It relied on the location of the alleged events and property and stated that relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be located in the Eastern District.

The court therefore transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the Clerk to transfer the action, ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District, and stated that the action was closed in that court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

Service and Filing Instructions

The opinion states that the case had already been assigned docket number 22 Civ. 5755 in the Eastern District of New York. Stennette had filed an affidavit stating that service was completed on January 5, 2023, but had mistakenly filed it on the Southern District’s docket. The January 24 order directed her to refile that affidavit on the Eastern District’s docket and to file future correspondence there. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and earlier orders to Stennette.

Disposition and Scope

Judge Katherine Polk Failla transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York and closed it in the Southern District. The order addressed venue, case administration, and appeal fee-waiver status; it did not reach the merits of Stennette’s constitutional or New York-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-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.