Braun v. The Center for Internet Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JASON BRAUN,
Plaintiff,
-v- 1:25-CV-584
THE CENTER FOR INTERNET
SECURITY, ERIN HAGGERTY,
MICHELLE PETERSON, KRISTINA
RANKIN, CAROLYN COMER, and
CURTIS DUKES,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
GODDARD LAW PLLC MEGAN GODDARD, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDSDAY M. GOLDBRUM, ESQ.
39 Broadway, Suite 1540
New York, NY 10006
BOND, SCHOENECK & MICHAEL D. BILLOK, ESQ.
KING PLLC
Attorneys for Defendants
268 Broadway, Suite 104
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 22

- 2 -
DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a disability discrimination matter. On December 20, 2024, Jason
Braun (“Braun” or “plaintiff”) filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court,
Rensselaer County. On May 8, 2025, defendant The Center for Internet
Security (“CIS”), along with CIS employee defendants Erin Haggerty
(“Haggerty”), Michelle Peterson (“Peterson”), Kristina Rankin (“Rankin”),
Carolyn Comer (“Comer”), and Curtis Dukes (“Dukes”) (collectively the
“defendants”) removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1441, and 1446. Dkt. No. 1.
On June 16, 2025, plaintiff re-filed his five-count complaint, which brings
claims for: (1) disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and
failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (“ADA”) against CIS; (2) retaliation in violation of the ADA against CIS;
(3) disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and failure to
accommodate in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”) against CIS and Haggerty; (4) retaliation in violation of the
NYSHRL against CIS and Haggerty; and (5) aiding and abetting
discrimination and retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL against Haggerty,
Peterson, Rankin, Comer, and Dukes. Dkt. No. 6.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 22

- 3 -
On July 31, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). Defs.’ Mem,
Dkt. No. 7-8. That motion has been fully briefed and will be considered on
the basis of the submissions and without oral argument. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7-8, 12,
13.
II. BACKGROUND
Braun is a resident of Johnsonville, New York. Compl. ¶ 9. In or around
2003, he was diagnosed with severe anxiety. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff also suffers
from panic attacks, depression disorder, and chronic back pain. Id. ¶¶ 20–21,
44.
Defendant CIS is an independent, non-profit global cyber-security
business that is registered in New York and located in Greenbush, New York.
Compl. ¶ 12. At the time this lawsuit was filed, defendant Haggerty was a
Team Leader of CIS’s Cloud Security Team, where she served as plaintiff’s
supervisor. Id. ¶ 15. Defendant Peterson served as Haggerty’s supervisor.
Id. ¶ 16. Defendants Rankin and Comer were each Human Resources
(“H.R.”) representatives at CIS. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. Defendant Dukes was the
Executive Vice President at CIS. Id. ¶ 19.
In approximately 2015, plaintiff was hired by CIS as a Help Desk Agent.
Comp. ¶ 25. At that time, his anxiety disability was disclosed to
management and coworkers whom he alleges were “receptive” and
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 22

- 4 -
“encouraged him to share his story.” Id. ¶¶ 25–27. Braun was promoted
multiple times and received yearly bonuses and awards from CIS during the
period from 2015 to 2021 Id. ¶¶ 25–31, 53, 82.
According to plaintiff, CIS was so impressed with his performance that, “in
or around 2018, they created a specific position for him: Associate Cloud
Solutions Architect” on CIS’s Cloud Security Team. Compl. ¶ 35. In his new
role, plaintiff began reporting to non-defendant Kathleen Patentrager
(“Patentrager”). Compl. ¶ 37.
In approximately 2019, plaintiff fell while snowboarding causing
“persistent, severe back pain” and “exacerbated […] back problems that [he]
had experienced for years.” Compl. ¶ 45. As a result, plaintiff required
weekly chiropractic treatment throughout 2019 and 2020. Id. ¶ 46. Plaintiff
frequently used time off and informed colleagues, including Haggerty, when
he needed to miss “work meetings or functions” to receive treatment. Id. ¶
47. Plaintiff contends that Haggerty “was especially unsympathetic and
downright rude about [his] disability[,]” that her attitude towards him
changed when he sought reasonable accommodations to address his back
injury, and that she made this disapproval known. Id. ¶¶ 48–50.
Chiropractic therapy did not improve plaintiff’s back pain and he “was
forced to undergo spinal fusion therapy” on August 10, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 52, 54.
Two weeks later, Braun’s physician advised him he would need a second back
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 22

- 5 -
surgery, which occurred on September 11, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 55–56. Following
this “revision surgery[,]” plaintiff required bi-weekly appointments for the
following year to receive back treatments. Id. ¶ 57. Despite using his lunch
periods to attend these appointments, keeping his colleagues updated about
his absences, and sharing with co-workers that he was experiencing
significant pain, plaintiff alleges that Haggerty increasingly became
unsympathetic and irritated due to his need for disability-based
accommodation. Id. ¶¶ 58–59. Around December of 2020, and at plaintiff’s
request, CIS provided a standing desk and exercise ball chair to help
alleviate his back pain at work. Compl. ¶¶ 61–62.
At some point in early 2021, defendant Dukes, Patentrager, and Sharon
Shoemaker (“Shoemaker”), a non-defendant manager at CIS, began a series
of workplace conversations for employees to familiarize themselves with
Dukes called “Coffee with Curt[.]” Compl. ¶ 64. Plaintiff alleges that
Shoemaker and Dukes frequently requested his presences on these calls to
discuss mental health, depression, and anxiety and referred to Braun as a
“cheerleader” and “champion” for mental health awareness and transparency
at CIS. Id. ¶¶ 65–66. Plaintiff “signed onto several calls throughout 2021 to
discuss his mental health and struggles with anxiety and depression with
countless colleagues and […] senior leadership. Id. ¶ 67.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 22

- 6 -
In May of 2021, Patentrager assigned the Cloud Security a mandatory
presentation to be delivered to the entire company, and a portion of it was
assigned to plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 68. Cognizant of his anxiety, plaintiff
“carefully prepared” his portion, however, in a team meeting right before the
presentation, Braun’s portion was drastically changed which triggered his
anxiety symptoms. Id. ¶ 69–70. Plaintiff then spoke to both Patentrager and
Comer, informed them of his anxiety disability, and requested to be excused
from the presentation as an accommodation and to avoid trigger a panic
attack. Id. ¶ 71. Plaintiff’s request was granted. Id. ¶ 72.
In the Summer of 2021, Patentrager retired and Shoemaker became the
interim manager of the Cloud Security Team and Braun’s direct supervisor.
Compl. ¶ 74. In August of 2021, plaintiff discovered CIS was considering
naming Haggerty as lead of the Cloud Security Team. Id. ¶ 75. Thereafter,
plaintiff alleges telling Shoemaker that Haggerty held disdain towards him
due to his disabilities and need for reasonable accommodation, that he feared
being targeted if Haggerty became his manager, and that he hoped H.R.
would protect him from Haggerty. Id. ¶¶ 76–78. But Braun contends
Shoemaker was indifferent to his concerns. Id. ¶ 79. The next month, CIS
announced Haggerty would become the Team Leader of Cloud Security
reporting to Peterson. Id. ¶ 81.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 22

- 7 -
After reporting his concerns about Haggerty to Shoemaker, plaintiff
alleges he was retaliated against in the Fall of 2021 when, without
explanation, Shoemaker and Dukes “suddenly stopped” requesting his
attendance on the “Coffee with Curt” calls even though they continued to be
held on a weekly basis. Compl. ¶ 83.
In early January 2022, Haggerty effectively became Braun’s supervisor,
after which he contends his work environment immediately deteriorated.
Compl. ¶ 84. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff received an e-mail from
Haggerty outlining expectations for the team and addressing certain ongoing
performance issues, but it was only sent to Braun which immediately caused
him anxiety. Id. ¶¶ 85–87.
Plaintiff quickly reported Haggerty’s e-mail to Peterson, who told him she
was sorry but offered no additional explanation. Compl. ¶ 88–89. In
plaintiff’s view, Haggerty singled him out to signal “that she was not going to
tolerate him discussing his anxiety [or] depression or grant any
accommodations for him[,]” which caused him to suffer daily anxiety
symptoms daily including vomiting and feeling “on the verge of an anxiety
attack.” Id. ¶ 90–91.
On January 14, 2022, plaintiff met with Haggerty and Peterson to discuss
why he was singled out and ask why a team meeting was never held to
discuss changes in expectations with the team. Compl. ¶ 95. When Peterson
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 7 of 22

- 8 -
asked why plaintiff believed he was being singled out, he told her he was
being “call[ed] out for things that [he] didn’t know.” Id. ¶ 96. After saying
this, plaintiff contends that Peterson interrupted him, said the team needed a
“reset[,]” and ended the meeting. Id.
Around this same time, Haggerty held a virtual meeting with the Cloud
Security Team. Compl. ¶ 99. During this meeting, plaintiff alleges that
when he attempted to participate, Haggerty “angrily cut him off and
dismissed his responses” but did not treat anyone else in the meeting this
way. Id. ¶ 100. Plaintiff alleges this affected his anxiety and he no longer
participated in the meeting. Id. ¶ 101. Soon after, on January 20, 2022, one
of plaintiff’s co-workers, Ed Oechsner, allegedly reached out to him stating it
was “obvious” that Haggerty treated Braun differently. Id. 102.
That same day, Oechsner called a meeting with the Cloud Security Team
where, despite plaintiff’s anxiety, he raised his issues about being singled out
by Haggerty. Compl. ¶ 103. When plaintiff described how Haggerty’s
treatment of him exacerbated his anxiety, Haggerty allegedly stated that he
cannot use his anxiety disability as an excuse any longer. Id. ¶¶ 104–105.
After this meeting, plaintiff alleges that both “a peer and another leader” at
CIS advised him to document his interactions with Haggerty moving forward
and contact H.R., which plaintiff was hesitant to do out of fear of losing his
job. Id. ¶ 109.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 8 of 22

- 9 -
Haggerty also took issue with plaintiff’s use of Slack, CIS’s internal
messaging system. Compl. ¶ 110. Specifically, she disliked plaintiff’s failure
to appear as “active” on Slack and admonished him in front of the entire
Cloud Security Team for not doing so. Id. Plaintiff also alleges Haggerty
expressed irritation when plaintiff engaged in team meetings, spoke to him
condescendingly, gave “snarky responses” to his questions, and ignored his
messages on Slack even though she appeared on the system as “active” but
“elevate[d] other colleague’s ideas.” Id. 112.
On February 10, 2022, the Cloud Security Team held a contentious
morning meeting where Haggerty repeatedly dismissed Braun’s requests for
information about a work-related issue. Compl. ¶¶ 115–117. According to
plaintiff, however, when another co-worker spoke up during the meeting,
Haggerty was cheerful and responsive. Id. ¶ 118. That afternoon, Haggerty
sent plaintiff a meeting invite for later in the day. Id. ¶ 119. When plaintiff
asked what to prepare for that meeting, plaintiff “curtly” replied that they
would be discussing the Team Expectations e-mail from January and that
Peterson would attend. Id.
During this meeting, Haggerty asked Braun how he believed the morning
meeting went. Compl. ¶ 120. Braun replied that while Haggerty was
receptive to other team members, she was hostile towards his input and
questions. Id. Plaintiff told Haggerty she was ostracizing him and treating
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 9 of 22

- 10 -
him differently than non-disabled colleagues. Id. ¶ 121. According to
plaintiff, Haggerty ignored his comments and inquired about his process for
“ticket time logging.” Id. ¶ 122. When plaintiff replied and provided certain
documentation to explain his process, he claims Haggerty “snippily” stated
that this process had changed while he was out of office. Id. ¶ 123.
On February 14, 2022, Braun received another ambiguous meeting
invitation, this time from Peterson. Compl. ¶ 127. At this meeting, Peterson
inquired about plaintiff’s issues with Haggerty before saying the entire Cloud
Security Team needed a “level set.” Id. ¶ 128–29. Two days later, Peterson
sent the entire team an e-mail laying out her expectations. Id. ¶ 131.
One week later, on February 23, 2022, plaintiff complained to H.R. about
Haggerty’s behavior. Compl. ¶ 132. Rankin confirmed receipt of Braun’s
complaint. Id. ¶ 133. That same day, Peterson held a meeting with the
Cloud Security Team to discuss the expectations “set out in the Team
Expectations Email that […] Haggerty had only sent to [p]laintiff in
January.” Id. ¶ 134. During this meeting, plaintiff remained quiet, feeling
unsettled about how Haggerty would react to his complaints to Peterson and
Rankin. Id. ¶ 135.
In late February 2022, CIS conducted interviews for openings on the
Cloud Security Team. Compl. ¶ 136. For one interview that was conducted
virtually, Haggerty invited plaintiff to be present. Id. ¶ 137. On the day of
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 10 of 22

- 11 -
the interview, plaintiff experienced significant back pain and, knowing he
would need to be on his exercise ball chair during the interview to remain
comfortable, requested permission from Haggerty to remain off-camera for
the interview. Id. ¶ 138. In response, Haggerty “dismissed [Braun’s]
disability and related pain” and “angrily warn[ed]” him there would be
consequences for staying off-camera. Id. ¶ 139.
On or about March 1, 2022, Rankin emailed Braun and asked about
Peterson’s February 23rd meeting with the team. Compl. ¶ 140. Plaintiff
responded by detailing his displeasure with his experience at work over the
prior few months. Id. 142. One week later, Rankin suggested that plaintiff
consider certain Employment Assistance Programs that might be helpful. Id.
¶ 143. On March 11, 2022, plaintiff responded to Rankin that he was not
sure an Employment Assistance Program would be useful given Haggerty
was causing his issue and suggested CIS instead provide Haggerty with
training to prevent bullying, targeting, or singling out employees. Id. 146–
148.
On March 15, 2022, Rankin requested a meeting with Braun, during
which plaintiff said he was not comfortable speaking with Haggerty and that
he was being forced to use paid leave for medical treatment to avoid the
anguish and anxiety Haggerty caused him. Id. ¶¶ 151–152. Rankin told
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 11 of 22

- 12 -
plaintiff that she would bring the matter to Comer’s attention, but plaintiff
never heard back from H.R. Id. ¶ 153–54.
On March 30, 2022, plaintiff alleges H.R. sent out an e-mail “to high level
employees” that Haggerty would no longer be working at CIS before
retracting it several hours later. Compl. ¶ 155. In plaintiff’s view, Haggerty
gave CIS an ultimatum that she or Braun needed to go. Id. ¶ 156. On April
1, 2022, defendant Comer requested a meeting with Braun. Compl. ¶ 157.
At this meeting, plaintiff was informed he was being terminated from CIS.
Id. ¶ 158.
On or about July 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with
the New York Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”).
Compl. ¶ 7. On September 6, 2024, plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to
Sue letter from the EEOC. Id. ¶ 8.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Rule 12(b)(5)
Rule 12(b)(5) authorizes a defendant to move for pre-answer dismissal of a
pleading for insufficient service of process. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(5). “[W]hen a
defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), the plaintiff bears the
burden of proving adequate service.” Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732,
752 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 298
(2d Cir. 2005)). “In deciding a Rule 12(b)(5) motion, a court looks to materials
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 12 of 22

- 13 -
outside of the pleadings to determine whether service of process has been
sufficient.” Jordan v. Asset Forfeiture Support Assocs., 928 F. Supp. 2d 588,
594 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (cleaned up). If service is found to be insufficient, the
court may grant plaintiff leave to cure the insufficiency or dismiss the action.
See, e.g., DiFillippo v. Special Metals Corp., 299 F.R.D. 348, 353 (N.D.N.Y.
2014).
B. Rule 12(b)(6)
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint’s factual
allegations must be enough to elevate the plaintiff’s right to relief above the
speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). So
while legal conclusions can provide a framework for the complaint, they must
be supported with meaningful allegations of fact. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009). In short, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
To assess this plausibility requirement, the court must accept as true all of
the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant’s favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). In doing so, the court generally confines itself to the facts alleged in
the pleading, any documents attached to the complaint or incorporated into it
by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Goel v.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 13 of 22

- 14 -
Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554, 559 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Concord Assocs., L.P.
v. Ent. Props. Tr., 817 F.3d 46, 51 n.2 (2d Cir. 2016)).
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s five-count action brings the following claims: (1) disability
discrimination, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate in
violation of the ADA against CIS; (2) retaliation in violation of the ADA
against CIS; (3) disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and
failure to accommodate in violation of the NYSHRL against CIS and
Haggerty; (4) retaliation in violation the NYSHRL against CIS and Haggerty;
and (5) aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation in violation of the
NYSHRL against Haggerty, Peterson, Rankin, Comer, and Dukes. Compl.
¶¶ 159–210.
Defendants have moved to dismiss, arguing Braun fails to state plausible
claims for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to
accommodate, retaliation, or aiding and abetting discrimination and
retaliation under either the ADA or NYSHRL. Defs.’ Mem., Dkt. No. 7-8 at
5–14.1 In addition, defendants contend that plaintiff failed to properly
effectuate service upon CIS, Rankin, Haggerty, Comer, and Dukes. Id. at 14–
15.
1 Pagination corresponds to CM/ECF headers.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 14 of 22

- 15 -
Plaintiff has opposed, arguing that he has made out plausible claims for
disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate,
retaliation, and aiding and abetting discrimination. Pl’s. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 12
at 13–19. Plaintiff also contends that service was proper and that, in the
event the Court does find it to be insufficient, he should be permitted to cure
any defects. Id. at 12–13.
A. Service Issues
The Court first turns to defendants’ Rule 12(b)(5) motion. Defendants
contend that plaintiff failed to effectuate service where they incorrectly
served defendants Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, and Dukes, each of whom work
remotely for CIS. Defs.’ Mem. at 19. In addition, defendants assert that
while CIS did receive a copy of the Summons with Notice, service was still
improper because an individual not authorized to accept service did so on
CIS’s behalf. Id. Plaintiff opposes this motion, arguing that service of
process was proper as to all defendants.
Turning first to Braun’s service of process upon Haggerty, Rankin, Comer,
and Dukes, Braun argues in opposition each was properly served when the
process server both personally served and mailed copies of the Summons with
Notice to defendants’ actual place of business, i.e., CIS’s office in East
Greenbush, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 15 of 22

- 16 -
Rule 4 sets out the requirements for service of process. FED. R. CIV. P. 4.
Under Rule 4(e), Service on an individual defendant must be accomplished by
(1) following state law in the state where the district court is located, (2)
personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant,
(3) leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant's residence
with another resident, or (4) delivering a copy to an agent authorized by
appointment or law to receive service of process. Black v. Vitello, 841 Fed
App’x 334, 335 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order).
It is clear from the parties’ briefing that plaintiff did not attempt to serve
Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, or Dukes personally or at their residences.
Instead, Braun made service by delivering and mailing the Summons with
Notice to CIS’s place of business in East Greenbush, New York. But under
Rule 4(e)(1), plaintiff may also serve defendants by following New York law.
Under New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules (“CPLR”) 308(2), a natural
person may served by:
delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age
and discretion at the actual place of business ... of the person to be
served and by either mailing the summons to the person to be
served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the
summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her
actual place of business in an envelope bearing the legend
“personal and confidential” ... within twenty days of [the delivery].
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(2). New York court construe a person’s actual place of
business has been construed as: (1) a place where the defendant regularly
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 16 of 22

- 17 -
transacts business, or (2) an establishment that the defendant owns or
operates, where there is a clear identification of the work performed by her
within that place of business.” Warshun, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 266 (quoting
Velez v. Vassallo, 203 F.Supp.2d 312, 325 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (cleaned up).
In this context, a defendant can have more than one “actual place of
business.” Warshun, 957 F.Supp.3d at 266; see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. 308(6)
(defining “actual place of business” as “any location that the defendant,
through regular solicitation or advertisement, has held out as its place of
business”); Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP v. Global Nuclear Servs. Supply,
Ltd., 721 N.Y.S.2d 315, 317 (1st Dep’t 2001) (finding a defendant's actual
place of business to be an address for purpose of service because ;defendant
held it out as his business address and induced plaintiff's reliance by, among
other things, receiving business mail at said address even though “defendant
may have conducted business elsewhere at times”); Columbus Realty Inv.
Corp. v. Weng–Heng Tsiang, 641 N.Y.S.2d 265, 266 (1st Dep’t 1996) (“[I]n as
much as appellant was an officer and co-owner of the business where CPLR
308(2) service was made, ... it is not significant that she worked mainly from
her house rather than the place of business.”).
Plaintiff alleges his process server served Haggerty, Rankin, Comer,
Dukes, and Peterson by delivering the Summons with Notice and mailing
copies to the CIS’s East Greenbush office, which he contends is their “actual
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 17 of 22

- 18 -
place of business[.]” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 12 at 19. But plaintiff has not met
his burden of showing that this office was the “actual place of business” for
Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, and Dukes. Notably, defendants argue that
Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, and Dukes do not maintain offices, desks, or any
regular presence at this office nor do they report to or conduct business there
in a meaningful or consistent way. Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. No. 13 at 12. Plaintiff
has not alleged that these defendants have held themselves out as working at
the East Greenbush office.
Next, defendants contend that CIS was not properly served because they
never designated the building’s security guard as an authorized agent
permitted to accept service on their behalf. Defs.’ Mem., Dkt. No. 7-8 at 14.
In opposition, Braun contends that he properly served the company where
the Summons with Notice was delivered to an on-site security guard at CIS’s
East Greenbush, New York office who “confirmed his authority to accept
service.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 12 at 19. In reply, CIS argues that plaintiff’s
contention that the CIS security guard was authorized to accept service lacks
any evidentiary support. Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. No. 13 at 10. Defendants argue
plaintiff’s process service incorrectly identified an on-site security guard as a
manager, when he was neither a manager nor authorized agent. Id.
Rule 4(h) governs service upon corporations and allows for service of
process to be made by way of the same methods laid out supra in Rule 4(e)
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 18 of 22

- 19 -
while also allowing service by delivering a copy of the summons and
complaint to an officer, manager, or other authorized agent. Black v. Vitello,
841 F.App’x 334, 335 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. (4)(h)(1)). In New
York, CPLR § 311 also “permits personal service on a corporation to be made
by delivering the summons ‘to an officer, director, managing or general agent,
or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service.’” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Kaufman, 896 F. Supp. 104, 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. §
311)).
“The law does not require that the process server make a factually
accurate determination of the status of the person who is served, but rather
that service be ‘made in a manner which, viewed objectively, was calculated
to give the corporate defendants fair notice of the legal proceedings against
them.’” Id. (quoting Carlin v. Crum & Forster Insurance Company, 565
N.Y.S.2d 519, 520 (1st Dept. 1991). “Where a process server is led to believe,
by employees of the defendant corporation, that he is serving papers on a
managing agent of that corporation or other person authorized to accept
service, service will be deemed valid if that belief is reasonable.” Id. (citing
Gammon v. Advanced Fertility Servs., P.C., 592 N.Y.S.2d 23, 23 (1st
Dept.1993).
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 19 of 22

- 20 -
Upon review, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that defendants
CIS, Haggerty, Rankin, Dukes, or Comer were ever properly served.
“Rule 4(m) governs both (1) the dismissal of actions for untimely service of
process and (2) extensions of the time in which service may be effected.”
Zapata v. N.Y.C., 502 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2007). Under this rule, where
service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within
120 days of the filing of the complaint, the Court shall either dismiss the
action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified
time provided plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Id; see FED. R. CIV.
P. 4(m). In addition, a district court may grant an extension in the absence of
good cause, but it is not required to do so. Id. at 197.
While plaintiff has not provided any explanation for the failure to properly
serve CIS, Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, or Dukes, the Court will, in its
discretion, permit plaintiff one final chance to properly serve all defendants
in this matter as set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
General Order # 25. See Dkt. No. 2. Accordingly, Braun will be given until
April 27, 2026 to serve all defendants in this matter and file an affidavit of
service on the docket. In the event that plaintiff fails to comply and properly
serve each defendant, this matter will be dismissed with further Order.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 20 of 22

- 21 -
B. Remaining ADA and NYSHRL Claims
In light of plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service as to CIS, Haggerty,
Rankin, Dukes, or Comer, the Court declines to address the 12(b)(6)
component of defendants’ motion at this time. In the event that plaintiff
timely files an affidavit of service as directed infra, defendants will be
permitted to re-file their motion.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to properly serve defendants CIS, Haggerty, Rankin,
Dukes, or Comer. However, the Court, in its discretion, will permit plaintiff
one final opportunity to make service on all defendants. The Court declines
to address the remainder of defendants’ arguments at this time.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’ has until April 27, 2026 to serve the Summons and Complaint
to all defendants and file an Affidavit of Service;
3. In the event that plaintiff timely files an Affidavit of Service as to all
defendants, the Clerk is directed to set answer deadlines to plaintiff’s
complaint as to each defendant; and
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 21 of 22

- 22 -
4. In the event that plaintiff fails to timely file an Affidavit of Service as
to any defendant, the Clerk is directed to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
without further Order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate the pending motion
and set deadlines accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-00584-DNH-DJS Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 Page 22 of 22