Montero v. New York City Housing Authority
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-09301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Antony Montero v. New York City Housing Authority, Magistrate Judge Parker ordered service of the amended complaint on all 16 defendants.
The order affects Antony Montero, the 16 named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service. It authorizes service of Montero’s amended complaint and adds seven individuals as defendants, but does not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Antony Montero v. New York City Housing Authority concerns Montero’s claims of retaliation and disability discrimination under federal, state, and municipal laws, along with constitutional claims. He seeks damages, declarations, and an injunction.
After Montero amended his complaint and added or renamed defendants, the court found that the complaint described their alleged involvement and directed that all 16 defendants be served. The order does not decide whether Montero’s claims are legally valid.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and give the paperwork to the United States Marshals Service because Montero was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. The order supersedes an earlier service directive.
The detailed version
- Montero v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:24-cv-09301
- James Oetken
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
Antony Montero, identified in the opinion as a New York City Housing Authority resident of the Bronx, brought claims alleging retaliation and disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and state and municipal counterparts. He also asserted constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
The defendants named in the amended complaint are the New York City Housing Authority; Building Management Associates; Luigino Gigante; Delia Hernandez; Lourdes Sanchez; Daniel Greene; Marcela Medina; Eva Trimble; Lisa Bova-Hiatt; Samuel Diaz; Richard Warren; Michael Graziano; Jorge Ramirez; Yolanda Padilla; Chris “LNU”; and Chris Mikrut.
The court had previously allowed Montero to proceed without prepaying filing fees. After Montero filed an amended complaint on October 14, 2025, an amended service order was required. An earlier order had added Yolanda Padilla and directed service on certain defendants, while allowing Montero to amend his complaint regarding Luigino Gigante, Samuel Diaz, Richard Warren, and Chris Mikrut.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to add or remove a party at any time on appropriate terms. The court explained that this rule permits adding people whom the complaint discusses as involved in the events underlying the claims.
The court found that Montero’s amended complaint renamed Luigino Gigante, Samuel Diaz, Richard Warren, and Chris Mikrut; added Lourdes Sanchez, Michael Graziano, and Chris “LNU”; and discussed each of them in allegations purporting to show their involvement in the alleged violations. Based on that finding, the court directed service on all 16 defendants.
Because Montero had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he was entitled to assistance from the court and the United States Marshals Service in serving the defendants. The Clerk was directed to prepare a service form and summons for each defendant and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
Ruling and Effect
The court directed the Clerk to mail Montero an information package; add the seven specified individuals as defendants under Rule 21; issue summonses for all 16 defendants; complete service forms with the defendants’ addresses; and deliver the documents needed to serve the summonses and amended complaint.
If the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, the order states that Montero should request more time to complete service. The order also requires him to notify the court in writing if his address changes and states that the court may dismiss the action if he fails to do so. This order supersedes the court’s October 3, 2025 service directive. The order addresses service and case administration; it does not resolve the merits of Montero’s discrimination, retaliation, or constitutional claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.