FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/01/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/01/2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/01/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/01/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK MICHELLE WOLFCALE, X : Index No.: Date filed: Plaintiff, : SUMMONS -v. - SPRUCE & BOND, LLC, : Venue is based on the Defendants principle S&B HOLDCO, LLC, : place of business at HUDSON BLVD. GROUP, LLC : 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite and MALLORY MAZUR, : 308, New York, NY To the above-named Defendants: Defendants. x YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the attached Verified Complaint of Plaintiff, MICHELLE WOLFCALE, dated December 1, 2016, a true and accurate copy of which is served upon you herewith. You must serve your Verified Answer upon the undersigned attorneys either (1) within twenty days after service of this Summons and the attached Verified Complaint, exclusive of the day you received it, if you were served personally in the State of New York, or (2) within thirty days after service, exclusive of the day you were received it, if you were not served personally in New York State. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that should you fail to serve your Verified Answer within the time prescribed under applicable law, Plaintiff, MICHELLE WOLFCALE, will take judgment against you by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint pursuant to section 3215 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Dated: New York, NY December 1, of 23

2 Yours, etc. & BAUM, LLP Baum, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 Union Square East Fourth Floor New York, NY (212) To: Spruce & Bond, LLC 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308 New York, NY S&B Holdco, LLC 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308 New York, NY Hudson Blvd. Group. LLC 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308 New York, NY Mallory Mazur 2 of 23

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x MICHELLE WOLFCALE, : Index No.: Plaintiff, : VERIFIED COMPLAINT Venue is based on SPRUCE & BOND, LLC, : the Defendants principle S&B HOLDCO, LLC, : place of business at HUDSON BLVD. GROUP, LLC, : 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite and MALLORY MAZUR, : 308, New York, NY Defendants. x Plaintiff MICHELLE WOLFCALE, by her attorneys, EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP, as and for their Verified Complaint against Defendants, states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MICHELLE WOLFCALE is an individual residing in Monmouth County, New Jersey. 2. Defendant SPRUCE & BOND, LLC ( SBL ) purports to be a limited liability company organized and is doing business actively in the State of New York without complying with the applicable legal requirements for doing so at 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308, New York, NY, Defendant S&B HOLDCO, LLC ( Holdco ) is a domestic limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and maintaining its headquarters at 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308, New York, NY, 10003, and duly registered to do business, and doing business actively, in the State of New York. 4. Defendant HUDSON BLVD. GROUP, LLC ( Hudson purports to be a limited liability company organized and is doing business actively in the State of New York without 3 of 23

4 complying with the applicable legal requirements for doing so at 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308, New York, NY, The foregoing defendants are jointly referred to hereafter as Spruce & Bond. 6. Defendant MALLORY MAZUR was at all times pertinent herein a manager or supervisor employed by Spruce & Bond and residing, upon information and belief, in the State of New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to C.P.L.R. ~ 301 and 302, because the Defendants are located in New York, reside in New York, are licensed to do business in New York and are transacting business in New York. 8. Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503 based on the defendants principle place of business at 89 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308, New York, NY, BACKGROUND 9. Spruce & Bond operates seven hair removal studios throughout Manhattan and Westchester County, NY. On the company s website, it boasts: Our customized wax, laser and brow treatments plus highly trained specialists you actually want to talk to help our clients stay smooth and confident without spending hours in the shower. 10. What Spruce & Bond clients likely do not know, however, is that the company engages in systematic discrimination on the basis of age and disability against its most competent and experienced professionals, seeking to drive them out of the company, or firing them outright, in favor of technicians with far less experience and skill. 11. Plaintiff was employed by the defendants and their predecessor companies for nearly fifteen years as an aesthetician before being summarily fired without explanation on =2= 4 of 23

5 August 4, 2016 at the age of 52 while employed at the defendants Madison Avenue location. The sole reason for Plaintiff being terminated was her age and disability and the defendants discriminatory desire to have only younger, able-bodied workers on their staff, and Plaintiff was in fact replaced by a younger aesthetician who had no disability after being wrongfully terminated. Plaintiff has also been known by the name Michelle Rosenthal and was known by that name while employed by the defendants. 12. Plaintiff had an excellent record of exemplary service to the company, but despite this she found her compensation being reduced and her mistreatment increasing with each passing year as she grew older, closer to and surpassing fifty years. 13. Plaintiff was routinely exposed to inappropriate comments referencing and/or demeaning her age, forced to do menial work, denied client referrals and consultations in favor of younger employees, and ultimately the company demanded that she transfer to another location which would significantly diminish her following and her income. These actions, upon information and belief, were intended to make her workplace intolerable so that she would resign. 14. A few weeks before being fired, Plaintiff was contacted by the manager of the defendants Scarsdale location and informed that she was being permanently transferred without consultation to the Flatiron location. 15. Plaintiff then called Caroline Rodriguez, the Flatiron manager, and asked what work schedule she would have. She was summarily told, without consultation and in a disrespectful manner, that she would be forced to work until 9 pm, two hours later than her schedule at Madison Avenue. Plaintiff informed Rodriguez that it would be extremely burdensome to force her to work such a shift because she lived in Monmouth County and would =3= 5 of 23

6 be forced to arrive home very late at night, and because she had arthritis and the condition would act up in the late evenings. Defendants were well aware of these two issues and for this reason had not required Plaintiff to work past 7 pm for many years. Younger employees who requested avoiding later evening shifts were freely permitted to do so. Defendants were also well aware that a transfer from Madison Avenue to Flatiron would mean Plaintiff would lose many clients from her following, who would not want to travel to a new location to receive services, meaning that Plaintiff s income would be significantly reduced. Rodriguez stated that she would look into the matter and get back to Plaintiff, but never did, and put Plaintiff off when she called for a status update. Younger employees, and those without disabilities, were not treated in this manner. 16. A few weeks later, upon seeing that Plaintiff did not quit when presented with the improper demand to transfer, Plaintiff was summarily fired by Defendant Mazur without explanation, for reasons of hostility to her age and disability, and was replaced by a younger worker who had no disability. 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the affidavit of Rita Redding, who worked closely with Plaintiff at the Fifth Avenue location. Ms. Redding confirms, based on her personal observations, that: a. Spruce & Bond denied client referrals to Plaintiff, redirecting such clients to younger staff; b. Spruce & Bond employees stated that Plaintiff was too old to be working for the company; c. Ms. Redding complained to Spruce & Bond management about his improper treatment of Plaintiff but nothing was done; =4= 6 of 23

7 d. A transfer from one location to another would predictably result in a significant loss of income to the transferred employee; e. Plaintiff was busy and well-liked by her clients and had a high level of financial performance when provided with a fair chance to succeed. 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the affidavit of Cyme Shala, who was the General Manager at the Madison Avenue Store. Ms. Shala confirms, based on her personal observations from January to July 2015, that: a. Spruce & Bond transferred Plaintiff from the flagship store to the Madison Avenue location and that such a transfer from the flagship store inevitably results in loss of income due to the difference in business volume; b. Spruce & Bond lowered Plaintiff s compensation when she was transferred to the Madison Avenue store although Ms. Shala did not agree with that decision; c. During meetings with managers of the other stores and company executives that Ms. Shala attended, she witnessed how the executives routinely criticized and made fun of Plaintiff because of her age. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Age Harassment and Hostile Workplace Against All Defendants) 19. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 18 as if set forth more fully and at length herein. 20. Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq., and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, 8-107, prohibit age harassment in employment. Defendants were Plaintiff s employers within the meaning of those laws. =5= 7 of 23

8 21. Defendants denied Plaintiff the benefit of employment, including all favorable conditions and emoluments thereof, and created and allowed to exist a hostile, intolerable workplace based on age harassment that was imposed upon her by the conduct of its employees and managers, of which they were well aware and without any non-discriminatory basis therefor. 22. Defendants actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The corporate defendants are liable for the discriminatory acts of their individual managers andlor supervisors and/or employees. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment consequences. Plaintiff was caused to suffer lost past and future wages, professional opportunities, and other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment, as well as to endure severe emotional pain and trauma and anxiety, all to their detriment. Her workplace became intolerable to a reasonable person. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Age Discrimination Against All Defendants) 24. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 23 as if set forth more fully and at length herein. 25. Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, prohibit age discrimination in employment. Defendants were Plaintiff s employers within the meaning of those laws. 26. Defendants denied Plaintiff the benefit of employment, including all favorable conditions and emoluments thereof, and created and allowed to exist a hostile, intolerable workplace based on age discrimination that was imposed upon her by the conduct of its employees and managers, of which they were well aware and without any non-discriminatory basis therefor. =6= 8 of 23

9 27. Defendants actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The corporate defendants are liable for the discriminatory acts of their individual managers and/or supervisors andlor employees. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment consequences. Plaintiff was caused to suffer lost past and future wages, professional opportunities, and other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment as well as to endure severe emotional pain and trauma and anxiety, all to her detriment. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Disability Harassment and Hostile Workplace Against All Defendants) 29. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 28 as if set forth more fully and at length herein. 30. Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq., and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, 8-107, prohibit disability harassment in employment. Defendants were Plaintiff s employers within the meaning of those laws. 31. Plaintiff suffered from a disability, arthritis, within the meaning of 290 et seq. and et seq. 32. Defendants denied Plaintiff the benefit of employment, including all favorable conditions and emoluments thereof, and created and allowed to exist a hostile, intolerable workplace based on disability harassment that was imposed upon her by the conduct of its employees and managers, of which they were well aware and without any non-discriminatory basis therefor. 9 of 23

10 33. Defendants actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The corporate defendants are liable for the discriminatory acts of their individual managers and/or supervisors and/or employees. 34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment consequences. Plaintiff was caused to suffer lost past and future wages, professional opportunities, and other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment, as well as to endure severe emotional pain and trauma and anxiety, all to her detriment. Her workplace became intolerable to a reasonable person. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Disability Discrimination Against All Defendants) 35. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 34 as if set forth more fully and at length herein. 36. Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, prohibit disability discrimination in employment. Defendants were Plaintiff s employers within the meaning of those laws. 37. Plaintiff suffered from a disability, arthritis, within the meaning of 290 et seq. and et seq. 38. Defendants denied Plaintiff the benefit of employment, including all favorable conditions and emoluments thereof, and created and allowed to exist a hostile, intolerable workplace based on disability discrimination that was imposed upon her by the conduct of its employees and managers, of which they were well aware and without any non-discriminatory basis therefor. =8= 10 of 23

11 39. Defendants actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The corporate defendants are liable for the discriminatory acts of their individual managers and/or supervisors and/or employees. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment consequences. Plaintiff was caused to suffer lost past and future wages, professional opportunities, and other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment as well as to endure severe emotional pain and trauma and anxiety, all to their detriment. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation Against All Defendants) 41. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 40 as if set forth more fully and at length herein. 42. Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, prohibit retaliation against an employee who seeks to assert rights under the Human Rights Law. Defendants were Plaintiff s employers within the meaning of those laws. 43. Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the mistreatment based on age and disability inflicted upon her by employees and managers of Defendants, and sought reasonable accommodation based on disability. In response, Plaintiff was subjected to additional mistreatment until working conditions became unbearable, all with the knowledge and approval of Defendants for the purpose of punishing her for attempting to assert her rights to be free from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. 44. Defendants actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The corporate defendants are liable for the discriminatory acts of their individual managers and/or supervisors and/or employees. =9= 11 of 23

12 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment consequences. Plaintiff was caused to suffer lost past and future wages, professional opportunities, other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment as well as to endure severe emotional pain and trauma and anxiety, all to her detriment. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the following relief against the Defendants: A. Enter a declaratory judgment, stating that Defendants practices, policies and procedures subjected Plaintiff to age and/or disability origin harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 296.1(a) of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. and Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, B. Issue an injunction to enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing any policy, procedure, or practice that denies employees of any age or qualifying disability the full and equal enjoyment of Defendants benefits, pay increases, promotional opportunities and advancement within the company, and specifically enjoin them: i. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy providing for the training of each and every employee and manager in the civil rights of employees in the workplace, including but not limited to age and disability harassment, discrimination and retaliation; ii. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy providing for reporting and investigation of complaints regarding civil rights abuses, including but not limited to age and disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and = 10= 12 of 23

13 iii. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy providing for disciplinary measures to be imposed upon any person found responsible for civil rights abuses, including but not limited to age and disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation; C. On the First Cause of Action, enter judgment against the named defendants and an award of compensatory damages including, but not limited to damages for back pay, front pay, past and future employment benefits, emotional distress, punitive andlor exemplary damages, attorneys fees, pre and post-judgment interest, in an amount, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of any other court, to be determined at trial by the jury, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, equitable and proper; D. On the Second Cause of Action enter judgment against the named defendants and an award of compensatory damages including, but not limited to damages for back pay, front pay, past and future employment benefits, emotional distress, punitive and/or exemplary damages, attorneys fees, pre and post-judgment interest, in an amount, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of any other court, to be determined at trial by the jury, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, equitable and proper; E. On the Third Cause of Action enter judgment against the named defendants and an award of compensatory damages including, but not limited to damages for back pay, front pay, past and future employment benefits, emotional distress, punitive and/or exemplary damages, attorneys fees, pre and post-judgment interest, in an amount, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of any other court, to be determined at trial by the jury, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, equitable and proper; =11= 13 of 23

14 F. On the Fourth Cause of Action enter judgment against the named defendants and an award of compensatory damages including, but not limited to damages for back pay, front pay, past and future employment benefits, emotional distress, punitive and/or exemplary damages, attorneys fees, pre and post-judgment interest, in an amount, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of any other court, to be determined at trial by the jury, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, equitable and proper. G. On the Fifth Cause of Action enter judgment against the named defendants and an award of compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for emotional distress, punitive and/or exemplary damages, attorneys fees, pre and post-judgment interest, in an amount, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of any other court, in an amount to be determined at trial by the jury, and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, equitable and proper. Dated: New York, New York December 1, 2016 EISENBE~di & BAUM, LLP By: Eric M. Baum, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 Union Square East Fourth Floor New York, NY (212) = 12= 14 of 23

15 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK) The undersigned, MICHELLE WOLFCALE, shows: Deponent is MICHELLE WOLFCALE, Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. Deponent has read the foregoing Verified Complaint dated December 1, 2016, and states that, to deponent s knowledge, the same is true except as to matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and belief; as to those matters, deponent believes them to be true. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: December 1, 2016 MICHELLE WOLFCALE Swo,~p to before this I ~thda ce,2016 NOT Y PUBLIC I RIRI NAGAO Notary Public State of New York I No. 01NA I Qualified in New York County izmy Comm. Expires Oct =13= 15 of 23

16 EXHIBIT A 16 of 23

17 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF BROWARD ) ss.: RITA REDDING, being duly sworn, deposes and says under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am a former employee of Spruce & Bond. I worked at the company for six years and left two years ago. I reside in Broward County in the State of Florida. 2. I make this affidavit based on my personal knowledge. 3. I worked with Michelle Wolfcale a/ic/a Michelle Rosenthal at the Fifth Avenue location of Spruce & Bond in New York City. 4. While employed at the Fifth Avenue location, I repeatedly witnessed the company switching clients and client inquiries to younger aestheticians, and I specifically witnessed clients that should have been assigned to Ms. Rosenthal being assigned instead to younger employees. 5. On at least two occasions, I heard fellow employees Kara and Patrick state that Ms. Rosenthal was too old to be an aesthetician at Spruce & Bond. 6. I complained to the company CEO Justin Joffe about this misconduct, but no corrective action was taken as far as I am aware and the situation did not improve. 7. Based on my observations of Ms. Rosenthal s professional activities, she was busy and was well liked by her clients and was among the best-performing aestheticians on a financial basis until the company began denying her access to clients. 8. Based on my experience working at Spruce & Bond, if an aesthetician were to be transferred from one location to another she would sustain a significant drop in client volume and income because many of her repeat clients would be unlikely to follow her to the new 17 of 23

18 location but rather would keep visiting the location they were used to, and be assigned to a new aesthetician. Further affiant sayeth not. Sworn to Before Me This 7 th day of November, 2016 ~~hg NO~RY PUBLfC JUUEA. FARA MY COMMISSION # ~F EXPIRES: June 23.~018 ~ond~d Thni NeIa~ Pubf~ Undeiwriters 18 of 23

19 CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF_~j\)~I4Q ss.: The undersigned does hereby certify that he/she is an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the State of Florida and having an office at 3113 Stirling Rd., Ste. 201, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312, State of Florida; that he is a person duly qualified to make this certificate of conformity pursuant to Florida State Law; that he is fully acquainted with the laws of the State of Florida pertaining to the execution of documents; that the foregoing acknowledgment by Rita Redding named in the foregoing instrument taken before ~ fai~4, a notary public (or other officer) was taken in the manner prescribed by such laws of the State of Florida, being the state in which it was taken; and that it duly conforms with such laws and is in all respects valid and effective in such state. Witness my signature this 1 day of November, 2016 Paul Kim E&q. Atto - aw in the State of Florida, residing in the State of Florida 19 of 23

20 EXHIBIT B 20 of 23

21 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ss.: CYME SHALA, being duly sworn, deposes and says under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am a resident of New York County. 2. I can be reached through the offices of Eisenberg & Baum, LLC, 24 Union Square East, Fourth Floor, New York, NY, 10003, telephone (212) From January through July 2015, I was the general manager of the Spruce and Bond location at 66th Street and Madison in New York City. The business is engaged in cosmetic hair removal. During this time, one of the employees subject to my supervision was Michelle Rosenthal. 4. As far as I know, Ms. Rosenthal was the oldest employee at my location, by at least a decade, and was significantly older than most if not all of the other technicians employed by the company. 5. Ms. Rosenthal was transferred to my location from the flagship location located at ~ 7~ Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City. She complained to me that this transfer was against her will and resulted in a loss of income due to a loss of following clients. Based on my own experience, it is inevitable that an employee transferred from the flagship to another location would experience a loss of income since the flagship has a greater volume of business and she had built her following of clients there. 6. In addition, the company lowered her compensation while she was at my location, a decision I did not agree with. 21 of 23

22 7. I believe that Ms. Rosenthal was transferred and caused to suffer a reduction in compensation because of her age. I attended regular manager meetings with the managers of the other two New York City locations and the three company executives, Justine Joffe, Carol Hayden and Mallory Mazur. When Ms. Rosenthal s name was mentioned in connection with discussions of employee updates, concerns and issues, the executives routinely criticized and laughed at her because of her age. For instance, on one occasion the executives were made aware that Ms. Rosenthal had objected to being required to wear Converse sneakers as part of her uniform because they did not provide sufficient support for long periods of standing. They laughed and said this was because she s so old and forced her to wear the sneakers. I objected during that meeting to the disrespectful and inaccurate way in which Ms. Rosenthal was being discussed. However, when other younger employees complained about the lack of support, the exact same concern that Ms. Rosenthal had raised earlier, the policy was then made voluntary. 8. There were many other similar instances during the manager meetings, and I had the clear impression that the company wanted to make Ms. Rosenthal uncomfortable so that she would quit and could be replaced with a younger worker. There was no other apparent reason for their actions, since based on my observations Ms. Rosenthal was a good worker who had been busy at the flagship location (where at one point I worked the front desk and monitored her business), receiving strong tips from guests and generating significant revenue for the company. Further affiant sayeth not. Sworn to Before Me This 11th day of November, 2016 ft NOTARY PUBLIC M OLENA MASTOV Notary Public, State of New York No. 01MA Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires December 22, 2018 ~tme SHALA 22 of 23

23 Index No.: Year: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK MICHELLE WOLFCALE, Plaintiff, -V.- SPRUCE & BOND, LLC, S&B HOLDCO, LLC, HUDSON BLVD. GROUP, EEC and MALLORY MAZUR, Defendants. SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP Attorneys for PLAINTIFF Office and Post Address 24 Union Square East Fourth Floor New York, NY Tel: (212) Fax: (212) SignatUr4R~11ei3o~Lia) Er,j/M. Baum, Esq. 23 of 23