FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEti YORK COUNTY CLERK INDEX 10/12/2016 NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO :Ž$ /;016 AM RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NC. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/'016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK X Date Purchased ZONEBA JONES, SUMMONS Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates -against- New York County as the place of trial. CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA, D'CITY FASHION LLC and D'CITY FASHION INC., The basis of venue is: residence of Defendants. plaintiff X Plaintiff resides at: 620 West 172nd St. County of New York To the above named Defendants: You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff's attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. 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: New York, New York October 10, MARK E. SEITELMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 111 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York (212) TO: CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA 2561 Smithfield Drive Orlando, Florida D'CITY FASHION LLC c/o Cesar Gomez Peralta 1032 Madison Avenue Bridgeport, CT of 8

2 D'CITY FASHION INC. C/o Cesar Gomez Peralta 2561 Smithfield Drive Orlando, Florida of 8

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X ZONEBA JONES, -against- Plaintiff, COMPLAINT CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA, D'CITY FASHION LLC and D'CITY FASHION INC., Index No.: X Defendant. Plaintiff, by her attorneys, MARK E. SEITELMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C., complaining of the Defendant, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief: 1. Plaintiff resides at 620 West 172nd Street, Apt. #5, New York, New York Defendant, CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA, has an address at 2561 Smithfield Drive, Orlando, Florida Defendant, D'CITY FASHION LLC, was and still is a foreign business corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of New York. 4. Defendant, D'CITY FASHION LLC has a registered agent on record with the Connecticut Secretary of State with an address as follows: Cesar Gomez Peralta, 1032 Madison Avenue, Bridgeport, CT Defendant, D'CITY FASHION INC., was and still is a foreign business corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of New York. 6. Defendant, D'CITY FASHION INC. has a registered agent on record with the Florida Department of State with an address as 3 of 8

4 follows: Cesar Gomez Peralta, 2561 Smithfield Drive, Orlando, FL On or before October 18, 2013, there existed a motor vehicle with Oklahoma license plate number 2JC On or before October 18, 2013, BUDGET TRUCK FUNDING, LLC, leased and/or rented the aforementioned motor vehicle with Oklahoma license plate number 2JC876 to Defendant, CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA. 9. On or before October 18, 2013, AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. leased and/or rented the aforementioned motor vehicle with Oklahoma license plate number 2JC876 to Defendant, CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA. 10. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle with the permission and consent of its owner. 11. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle in accordance with a lease or other arrangement with a company in the business of leasing vehicles in exchange for money. 12. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle with the permission and consent of its owner, BUDGET TRUCK FUNDING, LLC. 13. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle in accordance with a lease or other arrangement with BUDGET TRUCK FUNDING, LLC. 4 of 8

5 14. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle with the permission and consent of its owner, AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. 15. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle in accordance with a lease or other arrangement with AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. 16. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA leased said motor vehicle on behalf of or in his capacity as a principal, servant, agent and/or employee of defendant D'CITY FASHION LLC. 17. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA leased said motor vehicle in the course of or in furtherance of the business of defendant D'CITY FASHION LLC. 18. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle on behalf of or in his capacity as a principal, servant, agent and/or employee of defendant D'CITY FASHION LLC. 19. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle in the course of or in furtherance of the business of defendant D'CITY FASHION LLC. 20. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA leased said motor vehicle on behalf of or in his capacity as a principal, servant, agent and/or employee of defendant D'CITY FASHION INC. 21. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA leased said motor vehicle in the course of or in furtherance of the business of defendant D'CITY FASHION INC. 5 of 8

6 22. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle on behalf of or in his capacity as a principal, servant, agent and/or employee of defendant D'CITY FASHION INC. 23. On October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated said motor vehicle in the course of or in furtherance of the business of defendant D'CITY FASHION INC. 24. That on October 18, 2013, the roadway at or about 1225 St. Nicholas Avenue, New, York, New York was a public thoroughfare. 25. That on October 18, 2013, Defendant CESAR GOMEZ PERALTA operated, controlled and/or was using said motor vehicle at or about the above-mentioned location. 26. That on October 18, 2013, Plaintiff was a lawful pedestrian at the above-mentioned location. 27, That on October 18, 2013 at the aforementioned location, an object, believed to be a box, thrown from said motor vehicle came into contact with the Plaintiff at the above-mentioned location. 28. That on October 18, 2013 at the aforementioned location, an object, believed to be a box, thrown from said motor vehicle came into contact with the Plaintiff at the above-mentioned location. 29. That on October 18, 2013 at the aforementioned location, an object, believed to be a box, thrown from said motor vehicle by defendant or a servant, agent, employee, co-worker of 6 of 8

7 defendants, came into contact with the Plaintiff at the above-mentioned location. 30. That as a result of the aforesaid contact, Plaintiff was injured. 31. The above-stated occurrence and the results thereof were in no way due to any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto, but were caused by the joint, several and/or concurrent negligence of the Defendants and/or Defendants' agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of said motor vehicle. 32. Defendants were negligent, careless and reckless in the ownership, management, maintenance, supervision and control of the aforesaid vehicle and its discharged contents, under the circumstances then and there prevailing. 33. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries as defined by 5102(d) of the Insurance Law of the State of New York and loss greater than basic economic loss as defined by of the Insurance Law of the State of New York. 34. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR That by reason of the foregoing, and the negligence of the said Defendant, his agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff has been rendered sick, sore, lame, maimed and disabled and so remains. That she has been unable to attend to her usual vocation and activities and that she has been obliged to expend, and will expend in the future, sums of money for medical aid and 7 of 8

8 attention, and that by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 36. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff was damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant herein, in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: New York, New York October 10, 2016 Yours, etc., MARK E. SEITELMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 111 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York (212) of 8