Morales v. NYS Dept of Labor Local Office 014 et al, No. 5:2006cv00899 - Document 34 (N.D.N.Y 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Denying the Department of Labor's # 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/26/2009. {Clerk mailed a copy to Deborah L. Morales by regular mail} (mae)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ DEBORAH A. MORALES, Plaintiff, vs. 5:06-CV-0899 (NAM)(GJD) NYS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF EMPLOYEE SERVICES, and CNY WORKS, INC. N Defendants. _____________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: Deborah L. Morales Plaintiff Pro Se Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. Bond, Schoeneck, & King, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202 Attorney for Defendant CNY Works, Inc. A Andrew M. Cuomo Attorney General of the State of New York Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Defendant NYS Department of Labor Patrick V. Melfi, Esq. M Norman A. Mordue, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The Court having reviewed defendant NYS Department Of Labor s ( DOL ) motion for reconsideration of the Court s previous determination not to dismiss plaintiff s claims against DOL for lack of proper service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), finds that defendant DOL s additional arguments do not warrant reversal of the Court s previous decision on this matter. Indeed, as the Court previously determined, the Second Circuit s holding in Ruddock v. Reno, 104 Fed. Appx. 204, 206-7 (2d Cir. 2004) clearly established that if a plaintiff provides to the U.S. Marshal information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals failure to effect timely service constitutes good cause for failing to comply with the time requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Contrary to defendant DOL s arguments, the Court does not find that plaintiff s noninmate status, which differs from the plaintiff in Ruddock, is a distinguishing factor, particularly because defendant DOL is an agency of the State of New York, readily identified and located in spite of any error by plaintiff in providing an address for service of process. N Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant DOL s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated March 26, 2009 Syracuse, New York A M 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.