Montero v. New York City Housing Authority
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-09301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Anthony Montero v. NYCHA, Judge Oetken added Padilla and ordered service on most defendants while allowing amendment regarding four others.
Anthony Montero; Yolanda Padilla, who was added as a defendant; the nine defendants for whom the court ordered summonses and service; and Luigino Gigante, Samuel Diaz, Richard Warren, and Chris Mikrut, for whom service was not ordered and as to whom Montero may file a fourth amended complaint.
What happened
In Anthony Montero v. New York City Housing Authority, the plaintiff brought claims involving retaliation, disability discrimination, constitutional violations, and state law. The opinion addresses how the case should proceed, not whether those claims are valid.
The court added Yolanda Padilla as a defendant because the complaint discussed her and appeared to allege that she violated one of Montero’s constitutional rights. It ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve NYCHA, Building Management Associates, Delia Hernandez, Daniel Greene, Marcela Medina, Eva Trimble, Lisa Bova-Hiatt, Jorge Ramirez, and Padilla.
Judge James Oetken did not direct service on Luigino Gigante, Samuel Diaz, Richard Warren, or Chris Mikrut. The court granted Montero leave to file a fourth amended complaint containing facts about those defendants and their involvement, and instructed the Clerk to issue the required summonses and service forms for the other defendants.
The detailed version
- Montero v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:24-cv-09301
- James Oetken
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Anthony Montero’s third amended complaint asserted claims for retaliation and disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. It also asserted constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims, including claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and, as the court construed the pleading, the New York State Human Rights Law. Montero sought damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
The defendants named in the third amended complaint were the New York City Housing Authority; Building Management Associates; Luigino Gigante; Delia Hernandez; Daniel Greene; Marcela Medina; Eva Trimble; Lisa Bova-Hiatt; Samuel Diaz; Richard Warren; Jorge Ramirez; and Chris Mikrut. The court had previously granted Montero permission to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Adding Yolanda Padilla
Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may add a party when appropriate. The court found that Montero intended to name Yolanda Padilla as a defendant because the complaint referred to her as a party and alleged that she violated one of Montero’s federal constitutional rights. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to add Padilla as a defendant. The addition was without prejudice to any defenses Padilla might assert.
Service of the Complaint
Because Montero was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to assist with service. The court instructed the Clerk to issue summonses, complete service forms, and provide the necessary papers for service on NYCHA, Building Management Associates, Hernandez, Greene, Medina, Trimble, Bova-Hiatt, Ramirez, and Padilla.
The court did not direct service on Gigante, Diaz, Warren, or Mikrut. It granted Montero leave to file a fourth amended complaint alleging facts about those defendants and their involvement in the events underlying his claims. The court also stated that service on the other defendants should occur within 90 days after their summonses are issued, and that Montero should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to mail Montero an information package, add Padilla as a defendant, and arrange service on the nine listed defendants. It did not direct service on Gigante, Diaz, Warren, or Mikrut and granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint concerning them. The order did not decide the merits of Montero’s claims. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.