The allegations focus heavily on conditions at the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence in Queens, where Pena resided. The complaint describes unsafe and unsanitary living conditions, exposure to violence and drug use, and structural deficiencies in a converted industrial facility. It further alleges that veterans lacked access to transportation and essential services necessary for reintegration into the community.
One of the most controversial aspects of the case involves the facility’s designation as a MICA (Mentally Ill Chemically Addicted) shelter. Pena alleges that veterans are effectively required to disclose or obtain a mental health or substance use diagnosis in order to access housing. This requirement, the complaint argues, forces veterans to reveal protected medical information and discriminates against those without a formal diagnosis.
Women Veterans Excluded from Transitional Program
The lawsuit also raises concerns about gender-based exclusion. According to the complaint, the Borden Avenue program serves only male veterans, with no equivalent GPD-funded housing available for women in New York City. This disparity, Pena argues, denies women veterans equal access to federally funded services.
In addition to program conditions, the complaint alleges a failure of oversight by city officials and program administrators. Defendant Siobhan Dannacker, identified as having responsibility for program oversight, is accused of failing to investigate complaints and enforce compliance with federal standards including the required criteria of a mental health diagnosis for GPD program enrollment. The lawsuit characterizes this as part of an ongoing pattern of deliberate indifference.
Retaliation from the Veterans Task Force
Pena further alleges that he faced retaliation after speaking out about these issues. As a member of the New York City Veterans Task Force, he raised concerns regarding safety, drug activity, and threats within the facility. The complaint claims that he was subsequently removed from the Task Force and denied accommodations, actions he asserts violated his First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit also includes claims under the False Claims Act, alleging that defendants certified compliance with federal program requirements while operating noncompliant housing programs in order to secure funding.
Procedurally, the case has moved beyond its initial stage. The Court has granted Pena permission to proceed and allowed an amended complaint clarifying the defendants. The U.S. Marshals Service has been directed to serve the remaining defendants, marking a critical step as the case advances.
Pena is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, an independent audit of program funding, and monetary damages.
While the case centers on one veteran’s experience, its implications could extend far beyond a single facility. If the allegations are substantiated, the lawsuit may expose broader systemic failures in how New York City administers federally funded housing programs for veterans—raising urgent questions about accountability, oversight, and the treatment of those who have served. Read more...
