FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2012 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2012

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2012 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TONY PARKER, Plaintiff, Index No /2012 -against- W.i.P. CLUB, INC., BARRY MULLINEAUX, COLLECTIVE HARDWARE, INC., JOHN BAKHSHI, LINA KAY, HIRUKUNI SAl, JOHN C. BEST, FRANK PORCO, MERLIN B. WILLIS, 150 RFT V ARICK CORP., 150 RFTVARICK BASEMENT LLC and W & M OPERATING, L.L.C., AFFIRMATION OF JE JUN MOON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. JE JUN MOON, an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law before the Courts of the State ofnew York, under the penalties ofperjury, affirms: 1. I am associated with the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer, attorneys for Defendants 150 RFT Varick Corp. ("Varick Corp."), 150 RFT Varick Basement LLC ("Varick Basement"), Barry Mullineaux, Lina Kay, Hirokuni Sai (incorrectly named as "Hirukuni Sai"), John C. Best, Frank Porco, Merlin Bobb-Willis (incorrectly named as "Merlin B. Willis") (Kay, Sai, Best, Porco and Bobb-Willis, collectively the "Non-Managing Shareholders") (collectively, "Defendants") in this action. I respectfully submit this affirmation in support of Defendants' motion (the "Motion") to dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and for a more definite statement, pursuant to CPLR 321 1(a)(l) and (7), 3013 and 3024(a). 2. A true and correct copy ofplaintiffs Verified Complaint dated June 21, 2012 (the "Complaint" or "Compl.") is attached as Exhibit 1. NY_DOCS:

2 3. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for an injury he alleges to have suffered as a result of an altercation between patrons at a nightclub called W.LP. on June 14, 2012 (the "June 14 Altercation"). Plaintiffs Complaint is replete with vague and conclusory allegations in support of the asserted claims and alleges only meager facts relating to the June 14 Altercation. The essence of these allegations is that Defendants were negligent in failing to control the conduct of celebrity entertainers Chris Brown ("Brown") and Aubrey Drake Graham ("Drake"), and their respective entourages who initiated the June 14 Altercation, despite "media reports" of "bad blood" between only the celebrity entertainers. Even assuming these facts as true (which they are not) for purposes of this motion, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts sufficient to state legally cognizable claims against the Defendants -- the owners and operators of the club, and various other parties who were not involved in the June 14 Altercation. 4. The Complaint asserts three causes of action (1) for negligence under a theory of premises liability (Compi. ~~ 39-42), (2) for public and private nuisance (id. ~~ 43-47), and (3) under the New York Dram Shop Act (id. ~~ 48-53). Although the Complaint contains a few factual allegations in support of his first cause of action (id. ~~ 30-38), these facts are wholly insufficient to state an actionable claim of negligence. The Complaint otherwise contains of no particularized allegations offact in support of the nuisance and Dram Shop Act claims. 5. Plaintiffs negligence cause of action should be dismissed because, with the exception of allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions or simply reciting the "buzz words" of such a claim, I it fails as a matter of law to allege facts that would establish that Defendants owed, much less violated, any duty to Plaintiff. Instead, to support his claim Plaintiff relies on an expansion of the legally established duties owed by premises owner such that Defendants ~39. For instance, Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in failing to provide "adequate security." CompL NY_DOCS:

3 would owe a duty to (1) monitor the social relationships of their customers (through the media); and (2) control the conduct of third parties, such as their customers, based only on reports of "bad blood" between two patrons. Such an expansion of duties is not neither recognized nor warranted. 6. Under New York law, landowners and premises operators generally have no duty to control the acts of third persons. However, they do have a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to those on their property and to control third persons if they are reasonably aware of the need for such control. New York courts have found only limited circumstances that give rise to such "reasonable awareness" by premises operators, namely where there is: (1) a history of violent conduct on the part of an individual or as between an assailant and a victim; (2) a history of violent conduct on the premises; or (3) the occurrence of a verbal altercation or escalation preceding the incident in question. 7. The Complaint alleges that Defendants had a duty to control the entourages of Brown and Drake based on purported media reports of "bad blood" between these two individuals. Plaintiff acknowledges, however, that it was the entourages of Brown and Drake, not Brown and Drake themselves, who engaged in the June 14 Altercation. These facts, even if assumed to be true, do not fit within any of the recognized circumstances. Expanding these categories, as Plaintiff urges, to impose a duty to monitor the social relations of their customers through the media and control the conduct of those customers -- or other individuals that accompany them -- based solely on rumors of "bad blood," would subject premises operators to the unpredictable and limitless liability so strongly disfavored under New York courts. See Defendants' Memorandum of Law, Section I, (A). As such, Plaintiff's negligence claim should be dismissed. NY_DOCS:6 I246I.l 3

4 8. Plaintiff's public and private nuisance claims also should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to allege that Defendants interfered with Plaintiff s use or enjoyment of an interest in real property (a necessary element to state a claim of private nuisance) or that Defendants invaded any public right, such as the right to use a public space (as required to state a claim of public nuisance). The absence of any allegations regarding these and other material elements of a nuisance claim, and Plaintiffs failure to identify any private or public right that Defendants have allegedly infringed, require dismissal ofthe second cause of action. 9. Plaintiffs third cause of action under the Dram Shop Act should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege the elements of such a claim, most notably, the essential element of "privity" between the Defendants and the intoxicated tortfeasor claimed to have caused Plaintiffs injury. Liability will only lie under the Dram Shop Act if it can be shown that the defendant unlawfully sold alcohol to the specific individual that caused the plaintiff's injuries. The Complaint fails to identify that an intoxicated person caused plaintiff s injuries or that Defendants unlawfully sold alcohol to that same person. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Dram Shop claim should be dismissed. 10. The Court should also dismiss the Non-Managing Shareholders and Varick Basement from the action because documentary evidence, submitted with sworn affidavits, conclusively establishes that Varick Corp. is the only corporate entity responsible for managing and operating WJ.P. Varick Basement has no ownership stake in and nor authority or role with respect to the management or operation of W.I.P. The Defendant "W.i.P. Club, Inc.," which is not an active New York corporate entity, also has no ownership stake and no authority or role in connection with the management or operation of W.LP. The Non-Managing Shareholders, who are shareholders and in some instances directors and the Secretary of Varick Corp., have no NY_DOCS:

5 decision-making authority concernmg WJ.P.'s day-to-day operations, as evidenced by the Officer's Certificate for Varick Corp. Accordingly, there is no basis for any of these Defendants to be held liable for Plaintiffs claims and they should be dismissed from the action. 11. Finally, Defendants request that Plaintiff be required to make a more definite statement of his claims so that Defendants can reasonably prepare a defense and conduct meaningful discovery. At minimum, Plaintiff should be required to allege facts: (1) supporting the conclusory claim of a history of violent incidents at W.I.P.; (2) supporting a claim that Defendants unlawfully sold alcohol to the specific intoxicated individual who caused Plaintiff's injury; and (3) concerning the private and public rights, if any, with which Plaintiff claims Defendants have interfered under the nuisance claim. Otherwise, Defendants would be severely prejudiced in having to conduct discovery and respond to a Complaint rife with such vague and ambiguous allegations that provide virtually no details of the theories or claims being asserted. WHEREFORE, and for the reasons set forth above and detailed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion and the Affidavits of Barry Mullineaux and the Non-Managing Shareholders, and the exhibits thereto, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Verified Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) and/or 3013, or in the alternative order Plaintiff to make a more definite statement of the claims therein pursuant to CPLR 3024(a), and for such other, further and different relief as the Court deems just and proper. NY_DOCS:61246L1 5

6 Dated: New York, New York August 31,

7 EXHIBIT 1

8 IFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/20121 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TONY PARKER, Plaintiff, Index No. Date Purchased Plaintiff(s) designate(s) NEW YORK County as the place of trial -against- W.i.P. CLUB, INC., BARRY MULLINEAUX, COLLECTNE HARDWARE INC., JOHN BAKHSHI, LINA KAY, HIRUKUNI SAl, JOHN C. BEST, The basis of venue is defendants' address SUMMONS Plaintiff(s)' address: FRANK PORCO, MERLIN B. WILLIS, 150 RFT V ARlO< CORP., 150 RFT VARICK Boerne, Texas BASEMENT LLC and W. & M. OPERATING, L.L.c., Defendants. To the above named Defendant(s): 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 Attorney(s) within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); 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. NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter ca ptioned above, which has been commenced by filing of the accompanying documents with the County Clerk, is subject to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section 202.S-bb of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (bl (3) of that Section. The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF"I Is designed for the electronic filing of documents with the County Clerk and the court and for the electronic service of those documents, court documents, and court notices upon counsel and self-represented parties. Counsel and/or parties who do not notify the court of a claimed exemption (see below) as required by Section 202.S-bb(e) must immediately record their representation within the e-filed matter on the Consent page In NYSCEF. Failure to do so may result in an inability to receive electronic notice of document filings. Exemptions from mandatory e-filing are limited to: 1) attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the computer equipment and (along with all employees) the requisite knowledge to comply; and 2) self-represented parties who choose not to participate In e-fjllng. For additional Information about electronic filing, Including access to Section 202,S-bb, consult the NYSCEF website at www,nycourts.gov!efile or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center at or efile@courts.state.ny.us. Dated: New York, New York June 21, 2012 JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York (212) /1 da.vid'aro~ I'.'1 z@ By:

9 Oe endant(s) address(es): W.LP. CLUB, INC., BARRY MULLINEAUX COLLEcrIVE HARDWARE INC. JOHN SA KHSHI LINAKAY HIRUKUNI SAl JOHNC. BEST FRANK PORCO MERLIN B. WILLIS 150 RFT VARICK CORP. 150 RFT VARICK BASEMENT LLC 150 Varick Street New York, New York W. & M. OPERATING, L.L.c th Street Long Island City, New York 11101

10 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TONY PARKER, Index No. Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- W.i.P. CLUB, INC., BARRY MULLINEAUX, COLLECTIVE HARDWARE INC., JOHN BAKHSHI, LINA KAY, HIRUKUNI SAl, JOHN C. BEST, FRANK PORCO, MERLIN B. WILLIS, 150 RFT V ARICK CORP., 150 RFT V ARICK BASEMENT LLC and W. & M. OPERATING, L.L.c., Defendants x Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Jaroslawicz &Jaros, complaining of the defendants, upon information and belief, alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas. 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff is well-known basketball player who plays for the San Antonio Spurs. 3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, W.i.P. Club Inc. ("W,i.P.") is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W.i.P. is a club located at 150 Varick Street, New York, New York.

11 5. Upon information and belief W,i.P. stands for "Work in Progress." 6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant Barry Mullineaux ("Mullineaux") is believed to be the principal operator of a club known as Greenhouse. 7. Upon information and beliefw.i.p. is believed to be located in the basement of Greenhouse. 8. At au times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief defendant Collective Hardware Inc. is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Collective Hardware Inc. is believed to be a group that together with Mullineaux operates W.i.P. 10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant John Bakhshi ("Bakhshl") operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Una Kay ("Kay") operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Hirukuni Sai ("Sai") operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant John C. Best ("Best") operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Frank Porco ("Porco")operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 2

12 15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Merlin B. Willis ("Willis") operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant 150 RFT Varick Corp. is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant 150 RFT Varick Corp. operates Greenhouse and W.LP. 18. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant 150 RFT Varick Basement LLC is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 19. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant 150 RFT Varick Basement LLC operates Greenhouse and W.i.P. 20. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W. & M. Operating, L.L.C is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 21. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W. & M. Operating, L.L.C owned the premises known as 150 Varick Street, New York, New York. 22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W. &. M. Operating, L.L.C operated the aforementioned premises. 23. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W. & M. Operating, L.L.C maintained the aforementioned premises. 3

13 24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant W. & M. Operating, L.L.C operated Greenhouse and W.i.P. THEUND~RLYING FACTS 25. Defendant Mullineaux together with Bakhshi, Kay, Sai, Best, Porco and Willis, have created a confusing conglomerate of different names to operate the Greenhouse and W.LP. clubs. 26. As can be seen, Mullineaux and his associates, the individual defendants named herein, have created an intricate web of corporations and limited liability companies in order to conceal the identity of the owners and operators of the Greenhouse and W,i.P. clubs. 27. The premises at 150 Varick Street which house Greenhouse and W,i.P. have become a nuisance and a public nuisance, which is known to all of the defendants, which is believed to be the reason they have created this intricate web of entities. 28. The defendants also knew that there was criminal and other improper activity taking place inside as well as outside of the clubs; there had been numerous calls to the police; there had been violent incidents at the clubs; upon information defendants had been denied a liquor license due to the violent incidents and lack of security at both the Greenhouse and W.LP. clubs. 29. Itis believed that W.i.P. is specifically located in the basement of Greenhouse so as to be able to obtain a liquor license as an additional bar because it could not obtain a liquor license on its own. 4

14 30. On or about the night of June 14-15,2012, there was an altercation at W.i.P. 31. According to the media reports, there was present at the club that night an entertainer named Drake ("Drake"). 32. According to the media reports there was also present at the club that night an entertainer named Chris Brown ("Brown"). 33. Upon information and belief, both Brown and Drake have dated the same woman. 34. According to the media, there was known bad blood between Drake and Brown. 35. Apparentl y Drake and Brown were each accompanied by an entourage at the club. 36. According to the media, at some point Drake's entourage and Brown's entourage entered into an altercation involving bottle throwing, possible gunshots, and a general melee. 37. Plaintiff was present at the club that night, sitting at a separate table, apart from Drake and Brown. 38. As a result of the altercation at the club that night, plaintiff was caused to suffer severe personal injuries. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 39. The defendants were reckless, careless and negligent in permitting Drake's entourage and Brown's entourage to be in the club at the same time despite known tension 5

15 between the two; in failing to adequately secure the premises; in failing to adequately supervise the premises; in failing to have sufficient and efficient security; in failing to contact the police in a timely manner; in seeking to cover up what occurred; in creating a trap, hazard and a nuisance; in failing to properly monitor activity at the club; in violating the applicable laws, rules and regulations; and defendants were otherwise reckless, careless and negligent. 40. As a result of the defendants' negligence plaintiff was caused to be injured and to suffer a corneal laceration of the left eye and other injuries; unable to attend to his usual duties and vocation; incurred various expenses and other special damages; and plaintiff has been otherwise damaged, all of which damages are continuing into the future. 41. By reason of the foregoing, defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to the exceptions set forth in the CPLR. 42. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to recover all of his damages in an amount not to exceed the sum of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000). AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 43. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each of the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 44. The defendants maintained a nuisance and a public nuisance by having a club without adequate supervision and security; in sitting persons known to be hostile to each other at the same time in order to generate funds for themselves; in creating a public nuisance; in knowing that there had previously been violent incidents at the club and 6

16 immediately outside the club and not providing adequate security; in serving liquor to intoxicated persons after they were obviously intoxicated; in violating applicable laws, rules and regulations; and defendants otherwise created and maintained a public nuisance. 45. As a result of the defendants' conduct, plaintiff was caused to be damaged as set forth above. 46. By reason of the foregoing, defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to the exceptions set forth in the CPLR. 47. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the sum of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000). AS ANQ...FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 48. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each of the foregoing allegations with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 49. The defendants' conduct in providing intoxicated persons who were visibly intoxicated with alcoholic beverages, and not caring whether or not they were intoxicated but continuing to provide them with alcoholic beverages, was a contributing cause of the altercation and plaintiff's injuries and damages. 50. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated of the General Obligations Law of the State of New York, and 65 of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. 51. As a result of the defendants' conduct, plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above. 7

17 52. By reason of the foregoing, defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to the exceptions set forth in the CPLR. 53. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the sum of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000). WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant, to recover for all of her damages, all together with the costs and disbursements of this action. JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New YOr,k 1.POO7 (212) 22!:2J:~9'/,,/~/7' (~.~) By: /.,,/, avid Jaroslawicz { / 8

18 DAVID JAROSLAWICZ, a member of the firm of JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, attorneys for the plaintiff(s) in the within action, duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following statements to be true under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to Rule 2016 of the CPLR: That he has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, he believes them to be true. Affiant further states that the source of his information and the grounds of his belief are derived from the file maintained in the normal course of business of the attorneys for the plaintiff(s). Affiant further states that the reason this affirmation is not made by the plaintiff(s) is that at the time this document was being prepared, the plaintiff(s) was (were) not within the County of New York, which is the County where the attorney for the plaintiff(s) herein maintains his office. Dated: New York, New York June 21, 2012 DAVID JARQS{,AWICZ,J,, \ \ \ \

19 (FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK()77i6120i2'l~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2012 Index No /2012 Date Purchased: 6/21/12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Tony Parker, Plaintiff, -Against- W.i.P. Club, Inc., et ai., Defendants. State ofnew York County of Albany Jeffrey Teitel, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is over the age ofeighteen years, is employed by the attorney service, TEITEL SERVICE BUREAU INC., and is not a party to this action. That on the 22 nd day ofjune, 2012 at the office of the Secretary of State of New York in the City ofalbany he served the annexed Summons, Notice ofcommencement ofaction Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing and Verified Complaint on 150 RFT Varick Basement LLC by delivering and leaving with (Jon nh s:.brl~11~.. _"..._., a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, ofthe State of New York, personal1y at the Office ofthe Secretary of State of the State of New York, 2 true copies thereof and that at the time of making such service, Deponent paid said Secretary of State a fee of$40.00 Dollars. That said service was pursuant to section 303 of the Limited Liability Company Law. Deponent further states that he knew the person so served as tbrsaid to be a clerk in the Office of the Secretary ofstate ofnew York, duly authorized to accept such service on behalfof said defendant. Deponent further states that he describes the person actually served as follows: Sex Skin Color Hair Color Age Height Weight Male..1: White ~Light :'5'-5'5".::t , ~ "" -r Female Black Medium '6"-6' Other Dark..!:' '1"-6'5" '6" Sworn to me this 220d day of June, 2012 ~.Q < f... ~.~.. Hilary Teitd Notary Public, State of New York Qualified in Albany County No.OlTE Commission Expires September 11, 2013

20 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'oi!16}:2 O~i21 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2012 Index No Date Purchased: 6/21112 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Tony Parker, Plaintiff,, -Against- W.i.P. Club, Inc., et ai., State ofnew York County of Albany Defendants. Jeffrey Teitel, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is over the age of eighteen years, is employed by the attorney service, TEITEL SERV1CE BUREAU INC., and is not a party to this! \2 action. That on the 22 nd day of June, 2012 at the office of the Secretary of State of New York in the City of Albany he served the annexed Summons, Notice of Commencement of Action Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing and Verified Complaint on W. & M. Operating, L.L.c. by delivering and leaving with 0 Of\M s:.b.d 'li.n ~, a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, of the State ofnew York, personally at the Office of the Secretary of State ofthe State of New York, 2 true copies thereof and that at the time of making such service, Deponent paid said Secretary of State a fee of $40.00 Dollars. That said service was pursuant to section 303 ofthe Limited Liability Company Law. Deponent further states that he knew the person so served as forsaid to be a clerk in the Office of the Secretary of State of New York, duly authorized to accept such service on behalf of said defendant. Deponent further states that he describes the person actually served as follows: Sex Skin Color Hair Color Age Height Weight Male 1. White _.:!: Light :: 5'-5'5".:t t:-.. Female Black Medium '6" 6' Other Dark...1': '}"-6'5" '6" I Sworn to me this day of June,20l2 '~.~~~"~~ Hilary Teitel Notary Public, State ofnew York Qualified in Albany County No. OlTES Commission Expires September ll, 2013

21 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2012#) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2012 Index No /2012 Date Purchased: 6/21112 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Tony Parker, OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, -Against- W.i.P. Club, Inc., et a1., Defendants. State of New York County ofalbany Jeffrey Teitel, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is over the age ofeighteen years, is employed by the attorney service, TEITEL SERVICE BUREAU INC., and is not a party to this action. That on the 22"'1 day ofjune, 2012 at the office of the Secretary of State of New York in the City ofalbany he served the annexed Summons, Notice ofcommencement of Action Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing and Verified Complaint on 150 RFT Varick Basement LLC by delivering and leaving with ~~-L~1\c., a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, ofthe State of New York, personally at the Office of the Secretary of State ofthe State ofnew York, 2 true copies thereof and that at the time of making such service, Deponent paid said Secretary of State a fee of $40.00 Dollars. That said service was pursuant to section 303 of the Limited Liability Company Law. Deponent further states that he knew the person so served as forsaid to be a clerk in the Office of the Secretary ofstate of New York, duly authorized to accept such service on behalfof said defendant. Deponent further states that he describes the person actually served as follows: Sex Skin Color Hair Color Age Height Weight... MaJc...i White --rught ::t5'-5'5" j:" Female Black Medium " 5'6"-6' Other Dark.:t:: ' J"-6'5" '6"+ _250+ Sworn to me this 22 nd day of June, 2012 ~Q ---<-;1~-- Hilary Teitel Notary Public, State of New York Qualified in Albany County NO.OITE Commission Expires September II, 2013

22 - '""~"... INDEX NO. i~390i72(h2m~ [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2012) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2012 Index No /2012 Date Purchased: 6/21/12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Tony Parker, Plaintiff, -Against- W-i.P. Club, Inc., et ai., Defendants. State of New York County of Albany Jeffrey Teitel, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is over the age of eighteen years, is employed by the attorney service, TEITEL SERVICE BUREAU INC., and is not a party to this action. That on the 22 nd day ofjune, 2012 at the office ofthe Secretary of State ofnew York in the City of Al bany he served the annexed Summons, Notice of Commencement of Action Subj ect to Mandatory Electronic Filing and Verified Complaint on 150 RFT Varick Corp. by delivering and leaving with...doo..m.. ".c:..ht:l.::.tl.~_ a clerk in the office ofthe Secretary of State, of the State of New York, personally at the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, 2 true copies thereof and that at the time ofmaking such service, Deponent paid said Secretary of State a fee 01'$40.00 Dollars. That said service was pursuant to section 306 of the Business Corporation Law. Deponent further states that he knew the person so served as forsaid to be a clerk in the Office of the Secretary of State ofnew York, duly authorized to accept such service on behalf of said defendant. Deponent further states that he describes the person actually served as follows: Sex SlQ.n Color HairColQr Age I-Ieight Weight Male..l( White.:!'.. Light '-5'5" -.d' t_ Female Black Medium '6"-6' Other Dark _-t ' I "-6'5" '6" Sworn to me this 22 nd day of June, 2012 ~~~fl Hilary Teitel Notary Public, State of New York Qualified in Albany County No.OlTE Commission Expires September 11,2013

23 Index No. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TONY PARKER, Plaintift ~against- W.i.P. CLUB, INC., BARRY MULLINEAUX, COLLECTIVE HARDWARE INC., JOHN BAKHSHI, LINA KAY, HIRUKUNI SAl, JOHN C. BEST, FRANK PORCO, MERLIN B. WILLIS, 150 RFT V ARICK CORP., 150 RFT V ARICK BASEMENT LLC and W. & M. OPERATING, L.L.c., Defendants. Summons & Verified Complaint LAWOFFICES OF JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS LLC 225 BROADWAY, 24TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK (212)