Osby v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-01731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Osby v. City of New York, Judge Woods dismissed claims against two city agencies but allowed claims against the City to proceed and ordered service.
Tammy Osby’s claims against the New York City Department of Probation and the New York City Law Department were dismissed without prejudice to claims against the City of New York. The City remained a defendant and was ordered to be served.
What happened
Tammy Osby brought an Americans with Disabilities Act case against the City of New York and two city agencies, claiming that her employer discriminated against her because of her disability. The court also understood her amended complaint to raise claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.
The court dismissed Osby’s claims against the New York City Department of Probation and the New York City Law Department because city agencies generally cannot be sued separately from the City. Because Osby was representing herself, the court treated those allegations as claims against the City of New York instead.
Judge Woods dismissed the claims against the two agencies without prejudice to Osby’s claims against the City, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The case was not dismissed as to the City of New York.
The detailed version
- Osby v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-01731
- Gregory Woods
- June 14, 2023
Background
Tammy Osby filed an amended complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that her employer discriminated against her because of her disability. The court also construed the amended complaint as asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Osby was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Screening standard
Because Osby had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss any part that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from a legally immune defendant, or was filed in a case over which the court lacked authority. The court also said it must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably supported by the allegations.
Claims against the city agencies
The court dismissed Osby’s claims against the New York City Department of Probation and the entity identified in the complaint as the “New York City Corporation Counsel Law Department,” which the court understood to be the New York City Law Department. Relying on the New York City Charter and federal decisions, the court held that a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued.
The court dismissed those claims without prejudice to Osby’s claims against the City of New York. In light of her status as a self-represented litigant, the court treated the allegations against the agencies as allegations against the City, which Osby had also named as a defendant.
Service and other instructions
Because Osby was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and prepare the forms needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. It instructed Osby to request more time if service was not completed within that period and to notify the court in writing of any address change.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Osby permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk was also instructed to mail Osby an information package.
Disposition
The court dismissed Osby’s claims against the New York City Department of Probation and the New York City Law Department without prejudice to her claims against the City of New York. It directed service on the City of New York. The opinion does not decide whether Osby ultimately proved discrimination or whether the City is liable.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.