FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/07/2011 INDEX NO. 104482/2011 SCANNED 0N411312011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2011 * Index No.: Date Purchased: SUMMONS -against- JOHNSON AVENUE LLC and MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, Plaintiff Venue is based on plaintiffs residence Plaintiff resides at 2 Haven Plaza, Apt #8D, New York, New York 10009 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 Plaintiffs Attorney@) within 20 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. n Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 1, 201 1 W W OFFICES OF BETH 9. SCHLOSSMAN, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff LUZ CRUZ 26 Court Street, Suite 2305 Brooklyn, New York 1 1242 (71 8) 522-5000 TO: JOHNSON AVENUE LLC-Secretary of State MGI CONSTRUCTION, DE.-Secretary of State k*.. I ; : f.., 1 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 11
Index No.: -against- Plaintiff, VERIFJED COMPLAINT JOHNSON AVENUE LLC and MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, by her attorney, LAW OFFICES OF BETH J. SCHLOSSMAN, ESQ., complaining of the defendant, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff, was and still is, a resident of the County of New York. 2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON AVENUE LLC, (hereinafter JOHNSON ) 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, JOHNSON AVENUE LLC, was, and still is, a business entity conducting business within the State of New York. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., (hereinafter MGI ) was, and still is, a domestic corporation, 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, MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., was, and still is, a foreign corporation, duly organized and existing und Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 2 of 11
the laws of a state other than the State of New York, but authorized to conduct business within the State of New York. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., (hereinafter MGI ) was, and still is, an unincorporated business. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., (hereinafter WGI ) was, and still is, a business entity conducting business within the State of New York. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, JOHNSON, was the owner of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York. 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, JOHNSON, was the lessee of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, JOHNSON, was the lessor of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York. 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, operated the aforesaid premises. 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON, andor its agents, servants andor employees, managed the aforesaid premises. 13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, maintained the aforesaid premises. 3 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 3 of 11
14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, controlled the aforesaid premises. 15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, JOHNSON, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, repaired the aforesaid premises. 16. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, MGI, was the owner of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York. 17. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, MGI, was the lessee of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York. 18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, MGI, was the lessor of the premises, situated as a vacant lot, and known as 152, 154, 156 and 158 Johnson Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York, 19. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, operated the aforesaid premises. 20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, managed the aforesaid premises. 21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, maintained the aforesaid premises. 22. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, controlled the aforesaid premises. 23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, 4 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 4 of 11
servants andor employees, repaired the aforesaid premises. 24. That at all times hereinafker mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, JOHNSON, andor its agents, servants andor employees had full power and authority to manage, conduct, maintain and control the aforesaid premises. 25. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the defendant, MGI, and/or its agents, servants andor employees had full power and authority to manage, conduct, maintain and control the aforesaid premises. 26. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on January 1, 2010, the plaintiff, LUZ CRUZ, was lawfully upon the premises of the defendants. 27. That on the lst day of January, 2010, at approximately 5:OO a.m., while plaintiff was legally and lawfully traversing the aforesaid premises, plaintiff was caused to trip and fall, and sustain severe injuries as a result thereof. 28. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the said defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, to maintain the aforesaid premises, in a safe and proper condition so as not to cause injury to those persons lawfully thereat. 29. That prior to and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants caused, permitted maor allowed the aforesaid premises to be, become and remain in a dangerous, hazardous and traplike condition, for a long period of time, so that it became a hazard, pitfall and nuisance to persons lawfully thereat. 30. That the said accident and the injuries and damages to plaintiff resulting therefrom, were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence and culpable acts and conduct on the part of the defendants herein, 5 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 5 of 11
31. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the defendants, their agents, servants andor employees, to keep the aforementioned premises, in a reasonably safe condition and free from hazards, nuisances and trap-like and other dangerous conditions. 32. That the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, were negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of the aforesaid premises; in causing, permitting andor allowing the sidewalk of said premises to be, become and remain in a dangerous and defective condition; in creating a trap and nuisance; in permitting same to become and remain in a state of disrepair; in causing, permitting andor allowing the sidewalk of the aforesaid premises located thereat to be, become and remain in a dangerous, jagged, broken, unsafe, hazardous and trap-like condition; in failing to provide proper and adequate maintenance of said area; in failing to provide safe passage on the sidewalk of said premises to persons legally and lawfully on and upon said area; more specifically, for failing to provide plaintiff with a safe passage on the aforesaid sidewalk; in failing to provide a safe place to walk; in failing to provide a safe and secure footing for those lawfully traversing said sidewalk; in failing to place barricades and other warning devices at the place aforesaid to alert those persons lawfully on and upon said sidewalk of the hazards and dangers existing thereat; in failing to inspect, timely inspect and/or properly inspect the aforesaid place to ascertain the dangers existing thereat; in failing to repair, properly repair, adequately repair andor timely repair the aforesaid area; in causing a trap; in causing and creating an obstruction; in causing, permitting and allowing said sidewalk to remain as aforesaid which constituted a nuisance andor danger to persons lawfully walking thereat; and in knowingly permitting said hazardous, defective and dangerous condition to remain; in causing, allowing and permitting said premises and its appurtenances, to be, become and remain dangerous and life threatening; in failing and omitting 6 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 6 of 11
31. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the defendants, their agents, servants andor employees, to keep the aforementioned premises, in a reasonably safe condition and free from hazards, nuisances and traplike and other dangerous conditions. 32, That the defendants, their agents, servants andor employees, were negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of the aforesaid premises; in causing, permitting andor allowing the sidewalk of said premises to be, become and remain in a dangerous and defective condition; in creating a trap and nuisance; in permitting same to become and remain in a state of disrepair; in causing, permitting andor allowing the sidewalk of the aforesaid premises located thereat to be, become and remain in a dangerous, jagged, broken, unsafe, hazardous and trap-like condition; in failing to provide proper and adequate maintenance of said area; in failing to provide safe passage on the sidewalk of said premises to persons legally and lawfidly on and upon said area; more specifically, for failing to provide plaintiff with a safe passage on the aforesaid sidewalk; in failing to provide a safe place to walk; in failing to provide a safe and secure footing for those lawfully traversing said sidewallc, in failing to place barricades and other warning devices at the place aforesaid to alert those persons lawfully on and upon said sidewalk of the hazards and dangers existing thereat; in failing to inspect, timely inspect andor properly inspect the aforesaid place to ascertain the dangers existing thereat; in failing to repair, properly repair, adequately repair andor timely repair the aforesaid area; in causing a trap; in causing and creating an obstruction; in causing, permitting and allowing said sidewalk to remain as aforesaid which constituted a nuisance and/or danger to persons lawfully walking thereat; and in knowingly permitting said hazardous, defective and dangerous condition to remain; in causing, allowing and permitting said premises and its appurtenances, to be, become and remain dangerous and life threatening; in failing and omitting 6 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 7 of 11
to maintain a safe and hazard-free sidewalk; in failing to alert those persons making use of said sidewalk of the dangerous conditions existing thereat; in failing to warn or apprise the claimant of the danger to plaintiffs life and limbs; and in failing to take the necessary and requisite steps to prevent this foreseeable occurrence, the defendants, through their agents, servant and/or employees knew or should have known of said dangerous and defective conditions; in causing, permitting and allowing said sidewalk to remain as aforesaid which constituted a nuisance and/or danger to persons lawfdly walking thereat; and in knowingly permitting said hazardous, defective and dangerous condition to remain. 33. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled, sustained severe nervous shock and mental anguish, great physical pain and emotional upset, some of which injuries are permanent in nature and duration; and the plaintiff will be permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of such injuries; was required to subject herself to hospital and medical care and attention and to incur large sums of money therefore; and plaintiff will necessarily require further additional medical and hospital treatment and expenses in an effort to cure herself of said injuries; and plaintiff has been unable to pursue her vocational and recreational duties and activities with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this accident. 34. 35. That this action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR $1602. That based upon the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts. WHEFU?,FOFtE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in an amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdiction of all lower courts, together with attorney s fees, interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as to this Court seems 7 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 8 of 11
just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 1,2011 Attorney for Plaintiff LUZ CRUZ 26 Court Street, Suite 2305 Brooklyn, New York 1 1242 (71 8) 522-5000 8 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 9 of 11
... ATTOFWEY VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ss.: BETH J. SCHLOSSMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury: That I have read the annexed COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my own knowledge except as to those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following: books, records, file maintained in my ofice and conversations with the plaintiff. The reason I make this affirmation instead of the plaintiff is that plaintiff does not reside nor is she domiciled in the County wherein your affirmant maintains her office. Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 1,201 1 9 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 10 of 11
,.. c Index No.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LUZ CRUZ, -against- JOHNSON AVENUE LLC and MGI CONSTRUCTION, INC,, Plaintiff, LAW OFFICES OF BETH J. SCHLOSSMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff 26 Court Street, Suite 2305 Brooklyn, New York 1 1242 (718) 522-5000 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 11 of 11