Drews v. Silvestri
Wendy Drews v. Joan Silvestri; Iona Northern; Julianna Lambos; Rockland County; Rockland County Department of Social Services; Charlene Santilli; Patricia Underwood; Jane Does 1-3; Carla Hines-Melcher
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02710
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wendy Drews v. Patricia Underwood, Judge Román ordered Marshals service and extended the service deadline for Underwood in Drews’s amended lawsuit.
Wendy Drews and Patricia Underwood are directly affected. The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service must take the steps ordered to serve Underwood.
What happened
Wendy Drews v. Patricia Underwood concerns Drews’s amended lawsuit arising from the May 31, 2023, removal of her then-16-year-old son from her custody. Drews is representing herself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Patricia Underwood, prepare the required service form with Underwood’s address, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the time to serve Underwood until 90 days after the summons issues and directed the Clerk to terminate Drews’s motion about the service address.
Judge Nelson S. Román entered the supplemental order of service on July 16, 2026. The order addressed service procedures and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Drews v. Silvestri · No. 1:25-cv-02710
- Laura Swain
- July 16, 2026
Background
Wendy Drews filed the action while representing herself. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Drews later filed an amended complaint asserting claims arising from the May 31, 2023, removal of her then-16-year-old son from her custody.
The opinion states that the action was reassigned to Judge Román’s docket as related to an earlier proceeding, but this order concerns service on Defendant Patricia Underwood. Drews told the court that a clerical mix-up had affected Underwood’s service address and provided the court with the correct address.
Court’s Action
Because Drews was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance, the court explained that she was entitled to assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving process. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons for Underwood, and deliver the summons and other necessary papers—including a copy of the amended complaint—to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the deadline for serving Underwood until 90 days after the summons issues. It stated that if service is not completed within that period, Drews should request another extension. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF 40. It did not rule on the merits of Drews’s claims.
Disposition and Effect
This was a procedural order about service of process. The court ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve Patricia Underwood and extended the applicable service period. The order did not dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or decide whether Drews or any defendant was legally right.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.