FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2013

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X Index No. AMBER WOOD Plaintiff -against- SUMMONS CAROL MILLER, JOHN DOE A, JOHN DOE B JOHN DOE C Defendant X To the above named Defendant: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff s attorney within 30 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the date of service and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Newburgh, New York November 7 th, 2013 THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW BERSIN 11 Peter Ave Newburgh, New York (845) fax (845)

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X Index No. AMBER WOOD -against- Plaintiff ` COMPLAINT CAROL MILLER, JOHN DOE A, JOHN DOE B, JOHN DOE C Defendant X COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION PLAINTIFF, AMBER WOOD, an individual, hereinafter Plaintiff, sues DEFENDANT, CAROL MILLER, JOHN DOE A, JOHN DOE B, JOHN DOE C, hereinafter Defendants, for Malicious Prosecution and alleges the following in support thereof: JURISDICTION AND PARTIES Plaintiff is Amber Wood and is a resident of New York County. Defendant is Carol Miller and is a resident of State of New York Defendant is John Doe A whose name and address are unknown at this time Defendant is John Doe B, whose name and address are unknown at this time Defendant is John Doe C, whose name and address are unknown at this time MALICIOUS PROSECUTION COUNT 1

3 1. That on February 14, 2012, the plaintiff, Amber Wood, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, was caused to be arrested pursuant to a complaint that was filed by Carol Miller, hereinafter referred to as defendant. 2. That the defendant made knowingly false allegations that the plaintiff had assaulted and harassed her on January 31, 2012, at a restaurant called Fetch, located in New York County at, 5:45 p.m. 3. That the plaintiff was charged with sections 1 & 2 of section Assault in the 3d Degree, section , Menacing, section 110/120.00, Attempted Assault in the 3 rd Degree and section , Harassment in the Second Degree. 4. That the plaintiff had to make numerous court appearances to face these charges in Manhattan Criminal Court. 5. That upon information and belief the Defendant Carol Miller did with malicious intent solicited the Defendants, John Doe A, John Doe B, and John Doe C to confirm her malicious and false allegations that she had attacked the plaintiff and these said defendants did with malicious intent and knowing said statements were false and malicious inform law enforcement authorities that the plaintiff had attacked and assaulted Carol Miller. 6. That on November 13, 2012, the case and all charges that were brought against the plaintiff were dismissed with prejudice by the District Attorney in the County of New York. 7. The prosecution of this action against Plaintiff was malicious and brought without any basis in fact that the plaintiff had attacked and assaulted the defendant, Carol Miller.

4 8. The prosecution of this action was brought by the defendant Carol Miller vindictively and for an ulterior motive; for the purpose of attempting to legally harass and to defame Plaintiff. 9. The bringing and continuing of this action constituted malicious prosecution on the part of the defendant, Carol Miller, against plaintiff, and this conduct, being willful, wanton and malicious, warrants punitive damages. 10. That the statements made by John Doe A, John Doe B and John Doe C, that indicated that the plaintiff, Amber Wood, had assaulted and attacked the defendant Carol Miller, were false and made with malicious intent and said actions were willful, wanton and malicious and warrant punitive damages. 11. That as a result of the malicious prosecution Plaintiff was obliged to defend herself and to expend money and time in her defense, all in an amount to be proven at the trial; that she lost time from the ordinary pursuits in his life and home, and that the quality of her life was diminished by it, all to her great damage, as will be shown at the trial. 12. Plaintiff met her burden of proof in this action and that the defendants allegations against Plaintiff were unfounded and frivolous and without probable cause to believe that the action filed would succeed and was for an improper purpose. 13. Furthermore, this action was even more unfounded because these defendants completely failed to address or present any evidence regarding the criminal allegations brought against the plaintiff, made by all of the defendants. 14. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests special damages as may be shown and for general compensatory damages in tort as may be fixed by the jury, punitive damages as may be

5 assessed by the jury, and for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of defending this action. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants as enumerated im the First Cause of Action in Sums including punitive action against these defendants in an amount which exceed the monetary jurisdictional of all lower courts of this State together with costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Newburgh, New York November 7, 2013 Yours, etc Andrew Bersin Attorney for Plaintiff 11 Peter Ave Newburgh, NY