Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC

S.D. New York

Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC

DecidedSeptember 2, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-04441

StatusUnknown

This text of Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC (Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED MONIKA PURANIK, DOC #; —_________ DATE FILED: 9/2/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 24 Civ. 4441 (AT) (VF) THE CHILDREN’S PLACE SERVICES ORDER ADOPTING COMPANY, LLC, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Monika Puranik, brings this action against Defendant, The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, alleging, inter alia, discriminatory conduct in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seg. See generally ECF No. 25. By order dated October 18, 2024, the Court referred Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the Honorable Valerie Figueredo. ECF No. 36. After careful consideration, Judge Figueredo issued a report (the “R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and that the Court deny Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. See generally R&R, ECF No. 50. Although the R&R notified the parties of their right to object to the R&R, and the Court extended the time to object, no objections were filed and the time to do so has now passed. See R&R at 41; ECF No. 53; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no objection was made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, No. 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014); Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Figueredo’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. See generally R&R. Defendant’s motion to transfer venue, see ECF No. 33, is DENIED without prejudice. See R&R at 38-41. By September 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file any proposed second amended complaint, which must be accompanied by (1) a redline or a description of the changes from the first amended complaint to the proposed second amended complaint, and (2) a memorandum of law explaining how the amendments address the deficiencies described in the R&R. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 32. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2025 New York, New York ——ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED MONIKA PURANIK, DOC #; —_________ DATE FILED: 9/2/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 24 Civ. 4441 (AT) (VF) THE CHILDREN’S PLACE SERVICES ORDER ADOPTING COMPANY, LLC, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Monika Puranik, brings this action against Defendant, The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, alleging, inter alia, discriminatory conduct in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seg. See generally ECF No. 25. By order dated October 18, 2024, the Court referred Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the Honorable Valerie Figueredo. ECF No. 36. After careful consideration, Judge Figueredo issued a report (the “R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and that the Court deny Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. See generally R&R, ECF No. 50. Although the R&R notified the parties of their right to object to the R&R, and the Court extended the time to object, no objections were filed and the time to do so has now passed. See R&R at 41; ECF No. 53; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no objection was made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, No. 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014); Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Figueredo’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. See generally R&R. Defendant’s motion to transfer venue, see ECF No. 33, is DENIED without prejudice. See R&R at 38-41. By September 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file any proposed second amended complaint, which must be accompanied by (1) a redline or a description of the changes from the first amended complaint to the proposed second amended complaint, and (2) a memorandum of law explaining how the amendments address the deficiencies described in the R&R. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 32. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2025 New York, New York ——ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Monika Puranik v. The Children’s Place Services Company, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monika-puranik-v-the-childrens-place-services-company-llc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack