FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/20/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2015

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/20/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x Index No /2015 THOMAS BRIGHAM, -against- Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF MARY T. REILLY MARK M. JAFFE, BETH PRESSMAN, B. JAFFE REAL ESTATE CO. INC., B. JAFFE REAL ESTATE CO. L.P., GERARD PROEFRIEDT, NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, P.A., SARA ARNOLD, OAKLANDES COOGAM & VITTO, PC, and 'JOHN DOE" 1 "through 'JOHN DOE 10", who is an owner shareholder in the Building. The basis ofthe venue is CPLR 503(c) Defendants x Mary T. Reilly, being duly sworn, deposes and states: 1. I am a partner ofhill, Betts & Nash LLP, counsel for defendants Mark M. Jaffe, Beth Pressman, B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., Inc., and B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., L.P. ("Jaffe Defendants"). This affidavit is submitted in support ofthe CPLR 3012(d) motion for a thirty (30) day extension oftime, from October 28, 2015 to November , for defendants to answer or otherwise move in response to the verified complaint, served on October 8,2015 on B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., Inc. and B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., L.P. (Exhibit 1) The matters stated herein are based on my personal review ofour clients' records and discussion with our clients, including, defendant Mark Jaffe, who is also a long-time partner ofhill, Betts & Nash. 2. By dated October 15, 2015, defendant Gerard Proefriedt, acting on behalf ofall defendants, asked plaintiff to agree to a 30 day extension oftime for defendants to respond to the complaint. Plaintiff never responded to the request for an extension. (NY184092,2 ) 1

2 3. I respectfully submit there are reasonable grounds for the requested extension, including, the prolixity and content ofthe verified complaint filed by a litigious, pro se plaintiff, Thomas Brigham, which rw1s to 144 pages (with an additional 139 pages of attachments), 888 paragraphs, and alleges twenty-four (24) causes ofaction against eight (8) named defendants (the "Jaffe Defendants", their real estate attorney and architect, plus their respective firms) as well as ten (10) "John Doe" defendants. The verified complaint is Exhibit I hereto. 4. Plaintiff is a one-time commercial tenant of a third-floor apartment in a loft building at 72 Warren Street, New York, New York, owned by B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., L.P.. Since 2010, plaintiffhas been a protected residential tenant under the Article 7-C ofthe Multiple Dwelling Law (Loft Law). 5. The verified complaint pleads the following 24 purported causes of action: t i!'!');) '!!0,,;!f/:;:::::;!!;;:!,!,/!!'" I Conversion Trespass $2,000,000 3 Breach ofcontract $27,000,000 4 Intentional and Negligent Infliction ofemotional $4,000,000 Distress 5 Fraud Fraud in the Inducement Fraudulent Concealment Breach offiduciary Duty (against Defendants Arnold $2,000,000 andocv) 9 Aiding and Abetting a Fraud (against Defendants Arnold, OCV Architects) 10 Illegal Lockout and Illegal Eviction $5,000,000 II Breach ofwarranty ofhabitability and Quiet Enjoyment $2,000, Constructive Eviction $2,000, Equitable Estoppel $5,000, Uniust Enrichment $2,000, Illezal Adverse Takeover $5,000, Illegal Encroachment $5,000, Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective $5,000,000 Economic Advantage 18 Discrimination Harassment {NY } 2

3 20 Enjoining Defendants Until Lawsuit is Resolved Tortious Interference with Business Relationship $2,000, Declarative Judgment Contempt ofcourt Perjury TOTAL $68,000, Many ofthe issues which plaintiffwishes to litigate or re-litigate before this Court have been or ought properly to be decided in other pending proceedings with which plaintiffhas sought to entangle the Jaffe Defendants. 7. Among such issues is plaintiffs request, set forth in paragraph 834 ofthe verified complaint, that defendants be enjoined from doing improvements to "or receiving a certificate of occupancy for the Third Floor." By delaying issuance ofthe certificate ofoccupancy, plaintiff seeks to continue to live rent-free, in his newly renovated apartment at 72 Warren Street. However, the certificate ofoccupancy and the related plans and construction for the plaintiffs apartment are within the purview ofthe Loft Board, and have been the subject ofat least two separate proceedings. First, the parties have already completed the required Narrative Statement process at the Loft Board during which all issues concerning what certificate ofoccupancy construction work will be done have previously been resolved. Next, there is a pending application filed by Plaintiff at the Loft Board which was initially referred by the Loft Board to the Office ofadministrative Trials and Hearings ("OATH") for a hearing. In that application, Plaintiff seeks a determination that the work was improperly performed. OATH has remanded that matter back to the Loft Board, based upon Plaintiff's stated intention ofamending the application to include additional claims. Although he has had adequate time to do so, he has not yet filed the amendment. Instead, he initiated the instant proceeding claiming some $68,000,000 (NYI ) 3

4 of damages via his 24 causes ofaction. 8. Defendant Mark Jaffe (who with his sister Beth Pressman became a life beneficiary offamily trusts upon the demise ofhis parents) is 74 years ofage and recovering from open heart surgery (replacement ofaortic valve earlier this year). On August 28, 2015, he was compelled to appear and testify as a witness, before Housing Court, in a harassment proceeding commenced by plaintiff. Such proceedings are ongoing and Mark Jaffe is required to attend again on October 23, 2015, to resume his testimony. 1 am informed by his real estate attorney, defendant Gerard Proefriedt, that the glacial pace ofpro-se plaintiffs examination in that proceeding is likely to extend Mr. Jaffe's testimony over several months. The time and strain ofhaving to attend and testify in the harassment proceeding imposes an additional obstacle to the preparation ofa response in the instant case am informed by my clients and by their building manager, Charles Karp, that plaintiffappears to be impecunious, having in the past been in regular arrears for rent and has failed to pay for his utilities causing Con Edisonto visit the Manager's office on a number of occasions, in order to disconnect and then reconnect electricity to plaintiffs apartment. Further, 1am told that Mark Jaffe has, in the past, had to lend his personal funds to enable Brigham to avoid dispossession. Further, to also avoid eviction, plaintiff has reportedly sought financial assistance, under terms unknown, from a certain Ms. Gia Wang, a real estate broker with unclear ambitions towards plaintiffs loft and the loft building at 72 Warren Street in Tribeca. 10. Nevertheless, the plaintiff, in his Complaint, claims to have been damaged in the aggregate amount of$68,000,000. {NYI } 4

5 1l. in addition to responding to the verified complaint, the Jaffe Defendants intend, in due course, to assert a counterclaim in respect ofa suspicious fire that started in plaintiffs apartment the night ofmarch 22, 2014 (some two days after plaintiff had reached a written agreement with B. Jaffe Real Estate to vacate his apartment in order to permit work directed to converting the building to residential lofts and qualifying for issuance ofa certificate of occupancy). 12. No previous application has been made for this or similar relief. 13. Based on the foregoing circumstances, Mark M. Jaffe, Beth Pressman, B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., Inc., and B. Jaffe Real Estate Co., L.P., on behalfofall defendants, request that this Court grant all defendants (1) an extension to November 27,2015 of their time to answer or otherwise move; and (2) such other and further relief as may be just. Dated: New York, New York October 20, ;4 Mat.y'1':-Reilly V Sworn to before me this 9c d *day ofoctober 2015 r: I /-\ I,.I.!,,\. \. if l /" \ '... Notary Public! J 5