Rodriguez v. City of New York
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:18-cv-04805
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Buchwald denied Rodriguez’s request to serve Harry Mendez by alternative means.
Giovanni Rodriguez’s request to serve defendant Harry Mendez by alternative means was denied; the endorsement does not state any broader effect on the case.
What happened
Rodriguez v. City of New York concerns Giovanni Rodriguez’s effort to serve defendant Harry Mendez in a case arising from alleged interference with Rodriguez’s concert performances.
Rodriguez asked to serve Mendez through the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office, One Police Plaza, or the Executive Office of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. He said personal service attempts at Mendez’s last known address had failed.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the application. The endorsement does not state the court’s reason for denying the request.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04805
- Naomi Buchwald
- June 30, 2021
Background
Giovanni Rodriguez sued the City of New York and others, alleging that actions by members of the New York City Police Department prevented him from performing at two concerts in 2017. The opinion text says Rodriguez alleged that police members, including Harry Mendez, told concert promoters and venue owners that Rodriguez was a “gang member” and that concerts would be shut down if he performed.
The defendants’ counsel disclosed the identities of previously unnamed defendants in September 2020. Rodriguez then obtained permission to file a second amended complaint identifying several of them, including Mendez. The second amended complaint was filed on March 2, 2021. The court later granted a thirty-day extension for serving Mendez, making June 30, 2021 the stated service deadline.
Request for alternative service
Rodriguez’s lawyer asked for permission to serve Mendez by an alternative method under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5). The proposed locations were the office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, One Police Plaza, or the Executive Office of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System.
The lawyer stated that One Police Plaza had refused to accept service for Mendez, who was described as retired. A professional process server unsuccessfully tried to serve Mendez at the last known address supplied by defense counsel. The lawyer also searched court, online, and real-estate records and asked defense counsel to accept service on Mendez’s behalf, but counsel said she was not authorized to do so.
Ruling
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the application. The available opinion text consists of the request and a brief endorsement stating, “Application denied.” It does not explain why the court rejected the proposed alternative service methods and does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.