Anthony Revita used the public‑comment period at the July 8 Hudson City Council meeting to accuse city leadership of creating a “toxic work environment” for city employees and to say he is the target of multiple legal actions and a police inquiry.

Revita told council, “Tom Sheridan is a lap dog for Foster and everyone knows it. Foster AKA Littlefinger has his own personal agenda and is using the city and its employees as his own.” He said he is being sued “for $25,000 for my first amendment right to free speech” and that this is “my fourth lawsuit with the city.”

The remarks came during the council’s public comment period. Revita also said he was questioned by detectives and that the police chief told him an investigation was ongoing; he attributed advance notice of detective visits to the mayor. “Only Foster knew who were who my dear friends were, and called my dear friends 5 minutes before the detectives arrive,” Revita said.

Why this matters: Revita’s statements raise allegations about mayoral involvement in internal personnel or investigatory matters and assert multiple pending lawsuits involving a resident and the city. Council meetings are a primary venue for airing citizen complaints, and the allegations may prompt follow‑up by city officials or litigation developments.

What was said and what wasn’t: Revita made several specific claims about internal investigations and litigation. Council did not take action during the meeting on the claims, and the chief of police was referenced by Revita as saying an investigation is ongoing; the chief did not address the council during public comment. No motions, investigations, or formal responses by the mayor or council were recorded during the meeting minutes related to Revita’s allegations.

Council context and next steps: The city clerk closed the public‑comment section after Revita’s remarks. The transcript shows no immediate formal direction from council to staff or the police department to investigate Revita’s assertions during that session. Any official response or action would require follow‑up outside the public‑comment segment.

Revita’s remarks included other allegations about city personnel and prior interactions with staff; those claims were presented as his assertions and were not independently substantiated during the meeting.

Ending: Revita’s statements were part of the public‑comment portion of the July 8 meeting; council did not vote on, nor issue a public response to, his allegations at that time.