FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/12/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/12/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X ILANA MASKIN, Plaintiff, Index No.: Date Purchased: -against- ULYSSES CO, LLC., SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY II, LLC, SOLOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SOLOW MANAGEMENT CORP., BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY, LLC and BEAUTIQUE GROUP, LLC, Defendants X SUMMONS Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is: Plaintiff's County of Residence Plaintiff resides at: 303 East 37th Street Apt. 3A New York, NY 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: Brooklyn, New York January 8, 2016 Rebecca Rose Woodland REBECCA ROSE WOODLAND LONUZZI & WOODLAND, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff ILANA MASKIN 60 Sackett Street, Suite 2002 Brooklyn, New York (718) Our File No. 1344

2 TO: ULYSSES CO., LLC 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY, LLC 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY II, LLC 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY SOLOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY SOLOW MANAGEMENT CORP. 9 WEST 57TH STREET 45TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY LLC C/O JON BAKHSHI 630 FIRST AVENUE, # 11-M NEW YORK, NY BEAUTIQUE GROUP, LLC C/O JON BAKHSHI 630 FIRST AVENUE, #11-M NEW YORK, NY

3

4 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X ILANA MASKIN, -against- Plaintiff, Index No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT ULYSSES CO, LLC., SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY II, LLC, SOLOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SOLOW MANAGEMENT CORP., BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY, LLC and BEAUTIQUE GROUP, LLC, Defendants X Plaintiff, by her attorneys LONUZZI & WOODLAND, LLP, complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief as follows: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was, and still is, a resident of the County of New York, State of New York. 2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES CO., LLC ("ULYSSES") was and still is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC ("SOLOW") was and still is a domestic limited liability

5 company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY, LLC ("SOLOW BUILDING") was and still is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING COMPANY II, LLC ("SOLOW II") was and still is a foreign limited liability company, duly authorized to conduct business within the State of New York. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("SOLOW DEVELOPMENT") was and still is a domestic business corporation duly formed under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT CORP. ("SOLOW MANAGEMENT") was and still is a domestic business corporation duly formed under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY, LLC ("BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY") was and still is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 2

6 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP, LLC ("BEAUTIQUE GROUP") was and still is a domestic limited liability company, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES owned the premises commonly known as 8 West 58th Street, New York, New York (the "Premises"). 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ULYSSES managed the aforesaid Premises. 13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES controlled the aforesaid Premises. 14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES maintained the aforesaid premises. 15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES operated the aforesaid premises. 16. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 17. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant ULYSSES was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 3

7 18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ULYSSES was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 19. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW owned the Premises. 20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW managed the aforesaid Premises. 22. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW controlled the aforesaid Premises. 23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW maintained the aforesaid premises. 24. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW operated the aforesaid premises. 25. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 26. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 4

8 27. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 28. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING owned the Premises. 29. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 30. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW BUILDING managed the aforesaid Premises. 31. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING controlled the aforesaid Premises. 32. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING maintained the aforesaid premises. 33. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING operated the aforesaid premises. 34. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 35. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW BUILDING was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 5

9 36. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW BUILDING was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 37. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II owned the Premises. 38. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 39. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW II managed the aforesaid Premises. 40. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II controlled the aforesaid Premises. 41. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II maintained the aforesaid premises. 42. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II operated the aforesaid premises. 43. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 44. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW II was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 6

10 45. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW II was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 46. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT owned the Premises. 47. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 48. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW DEVELOPMENT managed the aforesaid Premises. 49. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT controlled the aforesaid Premises. 50. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT maintained the aforesaid premises. 51. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT operated the aforesaid premises. 52. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 7

11 53. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW DEVELOPMENT was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 54. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW DEVELOPMENT was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 55. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT owned the Premises. 56. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT was the lessee of the aforesaid Premises. 57. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW MANAGEMENT managed the aforesaid Premises. 58. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT controlled the aforesaid Premises. 59. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT maintained the aforesaid premises. 60. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT operated the aforesaid premises. 8

12 61. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 62. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SOLOW MANAGEMENT was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 63. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SOLOW MANAGEMENT was obligated to keep all sidewalks abutting the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code 64. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY was a commercial tenant at the aforesaid Premises. 65. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY was a commercial lessee the Premises. 66. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY leased commercial space at the premises located on the ground floor, with an entrance on West 58th Street. 67. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY operated a restaurant within the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 68. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY operated a lounge with the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 9

13 69. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY operated a bar with the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 70. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY managed the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 71. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY controlled the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 72. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY maintained the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 73. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY operated the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 74. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 75. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY was under a duty to keep all sidewalks abutting the leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 76. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BEAUTIQUE HOSPITALITY was under a duty to keep all sidewalks abutting the leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 10

14 77. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP was a commercial tenant at the aforesaid Premises. 78. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP was a commercial lessee the Premises. 79. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP leased commercial space at the premises located on the ground floor, with an entrance on West 58th Street. 80. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP operated a restaurant within the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 81. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP operated a lounge with the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 82. hat at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP operated a bar with the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 83. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BEAUTIQUE GROUP managed the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 84. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP controlled the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 85. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP maintained the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 11

15 86. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP operated the aforesaid leased space at the Premises. 87. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP was under a legal duty to keep the aforesaid leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 88. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant BEAUTIQUE GROUP was under a duty to keep all sidewalks abutting the leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. 89. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BEAUTIQUE GROUP was under a duty to keep all sidewalks abutting the leased space at the Premises in a reasonably safe condition in compliance with Section of the New York City Administrative Code. 90. On September 27, 2015, the plaintiff ILANA MASKIN was a lawful pedestrian upon the sidewalk abutting the Premises in front of the entrance to the Beautique Restaurant. 91. While lawfully upon the sidewalk, the plaintiff ILANA MASKIN was caused to fall to the ground, sustaining significant injuries. 92. The plaintiff was caused to fall as a result of a defective and dangerous condition located upon the sidewalk abutting the Premises. 93. The defendants were and are responsible for the dangerous and defective condition of the sidewalk abutting the Premises. 12

16 94. The plaintiff's fall, and the injuries she sustained were caused by the joint, several and concurrent negligence of the defendants and/or said defendants' agents, servants, employees, contractors and/or licensees in the ownership, occupation, operation, management, supervision, maintenance and control of the aforesaid Premises, including the abutting sidewalks. 95. That no negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to her fall. 96. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff ILANA MASKIN was caused to sustain serious and permanent person injuries as well suffer pain, shock and mental anguish. 97. That the plaintiff has been caused to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for medical care and treatment. 98. That this action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR That as a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff was damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 13

17 WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on all causes of action, 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: Brooklyn, New York January 8, 2016 Yours, etc. Rebecca Rose Woodland REBECCA ROSE WOODLAND LONUZZI & WOODLAND, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff ILANA MASKIN 60 Sackett Street, Suite 2002 Brooklyn, New York (718) Our File No

18 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REBECCA WOODLAND, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, state that I am a member of LONUZZI & WOODLAND, LLP, the attorney of record for the plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, as to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by your affirmant and not by the plaintiff, is that said plaintiff does not reside and is not currently within the county in which this firm maintains its office. Dated: January 12, 2016 Brooklyn, New York Rebecca Rose Woodland Rebecca Rose Woodland, Esq.

19