Christina Ambers, who has been called the “Heidi Klum of foot models,” is suing her building, 340 East 74th Street, for $10 million, alleging that the board is trying to force her out for marrying one of the building’s doormen.
Christina Ambers filed a $10 million lawsuit in Manhattan state Supreme Court against residents and management of the East 74th Street building known as the Avon House.
According to the reports in the Daily News and New York Post, the building’s staff allegedly refuse to get cabs for the couple and don’t tell them when messengers and packages arrive.
The lawsuit claims her husband, Angel Rotger, lost his job and building employees made her hail her own taxis and retrieve her packages after the couple became romantically involved.
The suit claims residents object to “a Hispanic former porter” living in the building.
The couple married in July.
“I hope that people can understand how awful it is to come home and to then be treated with hostility in a building where I have paid a lot of money to live,” Ambers told the Daily News. “Nobody should have to live this way.”
“The people in this building need to come into the 21st century,” Ambers said. “I fell in love with Angel because he is a sweet, caring man – how dare they look down on us!”
Building lawyer Joe Colbert says the claims have “no merit.”
Christina Ambers, who has been called the "Heidi Klum of foot models," is suing her building, 340 East 74th Street, for $10 million, alleging that the board is trying to force her out for marrying one of the building's doormen.
A story like this really upsets me! I see many biases here: racism, class-ism, civil rights issues. The civil rights issues concern Angel losing his job, for becoming romantically involved with Christina. So long as they were seeing each other during his non working hours, the firing was an invasion of privacy. Angel, a then unmarried man, had the right to see who he wanted to, after work! I’m surprised the union which covers building employees didn’t take issue with his dismissal.
Class-ism is rampart, in these buildings. Employees are usually expected to address near age, and younger residents as, “Mr./Miss/Mrs.”, while they are addressed by their first names. Normally, if the resident is okay with being called by his/her first name, nothing is said to the employee.
Since Angel is hispanic, racism is apparent. However, I believe that, had he been an Italian or Irish American, the firing would still have taken place.
I used to be in the field, on my insurance job, where I visited buildings similar to 340 East 74th St. Therefore, I know the attitudes which permeate this environment.
I want to congratulate Christina & Angel on their marriage, and wish them the very best in the lawsuit. It is high time the people in the building “came into the 21st Century”, regarding Civil Rights, Class-ism & Racism!
Heidi Klum is the Christina Ambers of non-foot modeling.
WHO IN THIS WORLD CARES ?
I care. It’s wrong and if they can discriminate like this, there’s no telling what may occur in the future.
I think the co-op is very wrong. She didn’t commit a sin, she simply fell in love and married for the same reason
There are still people whom believe they are better. Even on their death bed.It is like they believe there is a higher heaven where they can look down on everyone else.
It is sad. We are all human beings. And, so sad there are people that will never change, never have empathy of most of all a heart.
If people are productive and good what is the problem.
We have people that judge and they will never change. To me Christina is a beautiful person inside and out. She sounds so genuine, caring. The people whom are being dispectful it will come back on them. Maybe not today but, it will. If you are cruel to someone you will pay for it someday.
Are we reading the same article? Compassion is a good thing…but this couple is turning the proverbial mohill into a mountain.
Chile Christina…..
Angel hit da jackpot……he ga make you pop tem babies, and leave you wit a swellup foot and den you ga can’t model dem no more…..
….and den leave you broke when he take 75% cuz he ga take half and den claim he’s da better parent when you out dere tryna go to dem foot audition
Walk on gurl….walk on!
First off, what kind of language is this? It is very disturbing to me that proper english language is turning into this. It makes the writer look uneducated.
Second, a $10 million dollar lawsuit? It is no wonder the insurance rates have gone through the roof. While agree, there may be some racism going on in the building, I don’t agree with a $10 million dollar lawsuit. Everyone is so “sue” happy, and we wonder why we can’t afford insurance?
Hey, is your keyboard broken? For a minute there, I thought you were both ignorant and illiterate.
Hope she wins.
I’d sue the co-op too. And the staff who refused to get the couple a taxi should be disciplined.
I do wonder if a foot model who makes an enormous amount of money is going to be happy with a doorman, long term. Seems like two different worlds, but I don’t care – hope they have a long marriage.
I hope she wins
Interesting! but 10 million Dollars? …An extremely large amount for what seems like a very fixable problem! I’ll give them a solution for free…Employees of the Building need to respect their privacy and be professional, that is, open the door for them, hail their cab, deliver messages packages etc. 10 million?…NO, looks like the foot model and the doorman are attempting to Honeymoon forever . Discrimination is wrong, but this sounds like petty issues between a fellow employee who married up…one that the couple are exploiting.
A co-op is a pain in the you know what. It is a fixable problem but with a co-op nothing is an easy fix. I am a member of a co-op and believe me it takes an act of congress to get anything passed. I’m sure this is discrimination and that shouldnt happen rich or poor. I’m sure this woman is making enough money and she was smart enough to get a prenup before she got married if she didnt it was her choice. Oh yes, and to that Richard person who either cant type or doesnt talk well. There are night school classes you can go to for free and learn to read, write and type.
“Yvonne Wehrle says:
November 22, 2009 at 10:57 am
There are still people whom believe they are better. Even on their death bed.It is like they believe there is a higher heaven where they can look down on everyone else.”
People that believe in heaven and God look down on people that do not.
Some of you are missing the point when you say that 10 million is too much and this couple are exploiting “petty issues”. I’m assuming she has paid millions for a place to live and now has to face hostility everytime they enter or leave their home. It is costly and draining to find a new home. What price do you put on having peace in your living environment?
This woman is living in a fairytale world where she thinks she’s too good to do anything herself. Hail a cab and get your own package bizatch!
Is anyone still alive on this earth that is NOT a victim??? Not one of you pinheads stopped to ask if the building had a policy forbidding fraternization with clients. Many companies do, and it is legal you dopes. What about the rights of the other tenants??? Was Christina getting “extra” service? We also don’t know if Mz. Christina signed off on the same “no fraternizing” policy when she bought/rented her place. Did she agree to no monkey business with the staff and now expects everyone to just get over her blatant disregard of the rules?? If you retards were as concerned about your responsibilities as you are about your rights…..what a wonderful world this would be!!!
ok, um there are points that PCsick made that i agree with, but fraternization is not illegal. At most it is against company policy, but at the same time that only applies to when he is on the clock. Afterwards it does not apply and to ask a person to do so is a violation of their civil rights.
Your right, that is a fairytale world, let the new doorman hail the cab and whomever get her packages. Isnt that what she supposed to be paying for living in that co=op.
If they are being discriminated for living a “fairy tale”, more power to them both. As for the money being too much, not in the economic enviroment they live in. Some people just can handle seeing other people happy, looking down from their pedestal
they have placed them selves on. Maybe they do need to be put in their place by knocking them off that pedistal. Hope she and her husband win more. It not always about the money, I would hope.
If she decides to get divorced to keep her apartment then I’ll marry her.
You know, I dont understand any of this. PCsick has a point here. How do you know that they didn’t break some sort of law here? As far as the other employees getting involved, they shouldn’t even if a law has been broken. It is not their place to judge. But at the same time, maybe the couple should have married AFTER the doorman quit his job. I own a business and I certainly would not want an employee having an affair with a customer. It does show very bad on the business’s resume. And if they are having some sort of problem here, shes obviously famous of some sort, can’t she just pay someone to find her a new place to live. For 10 million snackers, she could damn near buy her own appartment building. Bet she has the money to look elsewhere.
It would be nice if folks knew how to spell. Proper use of the language would be nice as well. It looks like some of you posted these comments with your feet.
I don’t understand the racist claim, she also looks hispanic, maybe classism (doorman/model)…….wait til you have to deal with ageism daily…not fum, no one fights for you
i dont see anything wrong with this. i met my wife where i worked, several of my friends met wives or girlfriends in the workplace.
its a common thing any more.. yes in the 50′s and 60′s it was taboo to date anyone in your workplace, but then it was popular to smoke everywhere, women didnt have a place in most work environments.
point is things change..
as far as the 10 mil goes.. its New York her apartment probably cost that much.. If i was in her position I would sue to so I could take the money and move to another apartment.
they pay the prices they do for those apartments for the location and amenities they offer.. she paid for people to hail her cabs.. security.. she paid for those people working the building to bring her packages to her apartment..
its the same as the couple in the news refusing to pay a tip because they had to get thier own silverware, waited an hour for their food while the waitress sat outside smoking..
would you pay for service you were not getting?
WHO CARES!. I DON’T !
PCsick & Dusty,
I realize there have been conflicting court cases, involving after work activities. Still, it is my position that it is a Civil Rights issue to be left alone, regarding who one sees after work. If one works for a public employer, the U.S & State Constitutions can also be brought into play here.
I am against abortion, but would agree that no boss had a right to fire a woman if she had one, or force her to agree to this “rule” before he hired her. The same should apply to after hours dating.
Also, there is a matter of enforcement. Would a mere sighting of the two at a restaurant, movie theater, or of one entering the other’s residence be grounds for “discipline”?
Trying circumstances, I believe, justify people to bend society’s rules. Say a boss was going to fire someone over consensual, after hours dating. In the meantime, the paramour had dug up some interesting tid bits on the boss/human resources manager, and can document them:
1) The boss is a married man, who regularly cheats on his wife.
2) The H.R.Manager has an outside source of income, which he is not reporting to the I.R.S.
3) Both use cocaine.
If any of the above applied, it would be morally defensible to bring the documentation to a closed door meeting with the boss, especially one where he was ready to fire the employee. The guy about to be canned would then say, “I wouldn’t want your wife, the I.R.S., or the police to see this, old boy.”
I would bet that the boss would immediately agree not to fire the paramour, or any other employees involved in consensual dating, after work.
Blackmail statutes were written to prevent people from extracting money, or some other undeserved consideration, from others. In this example, the employee would merely be protecting his rights! In 2000, I ran this scenario informally by a lawyer. He agreed that few D.A.’s, if they found out, would choose to prosecute this . The exception might be political. Say, the employee was head of the Republican Party, in his County/District, and the D.A. was a Democrat. The D.A. may then want to put his opposition leader in an embarrassing light, even if the case would be weak.
I wish more people would stand up to draconian bosses who feel they can dictate such personal matters as who is “permitted to”, or “forbidden from” go out with others, after work. We are adults, and shouldn’t tolerate our employers playing surrogate mommy or daddy to us, over personal, after work issues!
BTW, I am a state employee, whose union would NEVER tolerate the enforcement of such an unconstitutional “rule”! Many people have dated, married, and remain employed.
The door man may have broken a company policy THAT IS NOT AGAINST ANY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. However, the building employees discriminating IS AGAINST THE LAW. Big difference. If she is paying for an apartment that offers these services and they are the only one’s not receiving them, then the building employees are discriminating.
Ten million is a lot of money but it drives home the point. In addition, insurance rates go up due to lawsuits like this but it could have been avoided if the managers would have corrected it immediately. I feel managers are responsible to be responsible with their insurance and ensure their loss history stays at a minimum by practicing MANAGING IT.
Once it was reported the managers should have stayed on top of the situation and ensured their employees were doing their jobs and if they are not they shoule be given corrective action or FIRED!
Some of the comments here are radical exposures of the ignorance that prevails in this country. Love does not have a dollar sign on it. And it’s just plain wrong to treat people poorly due to your opinion of their station in life.
While I agree with some of the things that PC said, it’s doubtful that this person knows the specifics to this case anymore than we do. If they do have a no fraternizing rule then yes they broke it and that’s life, they need to accept it. But what if they didn’t? Why should they be told or discriminated against because nobody likes the fact that they are dating?
To the person who asked about the rights of other tenants. What rights are being infringed upon?
That being said, $10 million is ridiculous. If they really wanted to be fairly treated they would be fighting for the cause and to get their rights back, not for money. I believe this couple is taking advantage of the system and I hope they get their rights back, but nothing else.