FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/07/2014 03/23/2016 02:53 03:57 PM INDEX NO. 805408/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/07/2014 03/23/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOYCE MAY, Plaintiff, Index No.: V. ARISTOCRAT PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C.; KAYVON TEHRANI, M.D. (adc/a KEVIN TEHRANI, M.D.); JOHN DOE/JANE DOE 1-2; (as yet unidentified individuals); ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-5 (as yet unidentified entities). SUMMONS Defendants. To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: P L E A S E T A K E N O T I C E T H A T Y O U A R E H E R E B Y S U M M O N E D t o a n s w e r t h e complaint of the plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the date of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the Summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. DATED: November 7, 2014 feliott Malone, Esq. Law Offices of Elliott Malone, Esq. LLC 720 E. Palisade Ave., Suite 102 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 201-608-5221 (office) Defendants, ARISTOCRAT PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C; KAYVON TEHRANI, M.D. (a/k/a KEVIN TEHRANI, M.D; JOHN DOE/JANE DOE 1-2 (as yet unidentified); ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-5 (as yet unidentified), 30 Central Park South - Suite 13A, New York, NY 10019. Venue: Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is Plaintiffs residence in New York County.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F N E W Y O R K COUNTY OF NEW YORK J O Y C E M A Y, Plaintiff, I n d e x N o. : V. ARISTOCRAT PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C.; KAYVON TEHRANI, M.D. (a/k/a KEVIN TEHRANI, M.D.); JOHN DOE/JANE DOE 1-2 (as yet unidentified individuals); ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-5 (as yet unidentified entities). COMPLAINT Defendants. Plaintiff, Joyce May, by way of Complaint against Defendants, states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Joyce May ("Plaintiff), is a natural person residing at 75 West End Avenue - Apt. R38D, County of New York and State of New York 10023. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Ms. May was a patient at Aristocrat Plastic Surgery, P.C. 2. Defendant, Aristocrat Plastic Surgery, P.C. ("APS"), is a domestic professional corporation with headquarters at 560 Northern Boulevard, Suite 109, Great Neck, NY 1I02I and an office at 30 Central Park South - Suite 13 A, New York, New York 10019. 3. Defendant, Kayvon Tehrani, M.D. a/k/a Kevin Tehrani, M.D. ("Tehrani"), is a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. 4. The true names or capacities of Defendants named JOHN DOE/JANE DOE 1-2 are not known to Plaintiff, who consequently sues these Defendants by their fictitious names. At all Page 1 of 8
times relevant to this Complaint, these Defendants were employees of APS and under the direct supervision of Defendant Tehrani. 5. The true names or capacities of Defendants ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-5 are not known to Plaintiff, who consequently sues these Defendants by their fictitious names. At all times relevant to this Complaint, these Defendants engaged in the acts complained of herein; and all causes of action herein are brought against each of these Defendants. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, pursuant to C.P.L.R. 301 and 302, because Defendants live and/or have business offices in New York, are licensed to do business in New York, and do in fact transact business in New York. 7. Venue is proper pursuant to 503 because Plaintiff lives in New York County. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8. On or about March 5, 2013, Plaintiff came under the care and treatment of a physician, Tehrani, who consulted with her at APS regarding Fraxel laser therapy. 9. Plaintiffs first Fraxel treatment was on March 5, 2013. Although Plaintiff met with Tehrani on that date, he did not perform the procedure. Rather, he allowed one of his staff to perform the complicated and potentially damaging procedure using specialized equipment. 10. A few days prior to the second scheduled treatment, previously scheduled for April 16, 2013, Tehrani's office contacted Plaintiff to confirm the appointment and that it would now be at their Great Neck, New York, office on Long Island. Plaintiff informed their office that she never Page 2 of 8
travelled to that area and therefore the appointment was rescheduled for April 23, 2013, in the New York City office. 11. During that appointment Tehrani allowed one of his clearly inexperienced staff to perform the complicated and potentially damaging procedure using specialized equipment. 12. The first "zap" of the Fraxel laser was made to a sensitive and delicate area right under Plaintiffs right eye. Immediately following the first "zap" the staff member quickly darted over to the Fraxel machine and adjusted the setting. The treatment then continued as though nothing was wrong. Following the thirty or so minute treatment, the staff member left the room and returned with an ice pack and told Plaintiff to hold it on that area under her right eye for about 20 minutes. This was very different than what occurred during Plaintiffs first Fraxel session in March. 13. The day following treatment the area under Plaintiffs right eye was blistered, red, and had clearly suffered a bum. In other words, Tehrani's staff member attempted to cover up a mistake and, by delaying corrective measures, likely caused significant damage to Plaintiff. 14. The day following treatment. Plaintiff called Tehrani's office and informed them about the blister. Plaintiff was instmcted to simply cover the blister with some ointment. Tehrani never bothered to call Plaintiff to follow up. 15. As the days continued, the blister resolved, but in its wake left a very noticeable red mark and dent. In addition to this, a large blue vein appeared in the same area caused by the pressure the dent in the skin had put on it; essentially, the blue appearance of the vein was evidence of the damage to the underlying tissue and vein, and the depth of the bum damage. This blue vein looked like a bmise, and caking on layers of makeup could only partially conceal the blue color, with a still very ungainly appearance. Page 3 of 8
16. At that time, Plaintiff decided that she needed to go back to Tehrani's office and show Tehrani the bum to see what he might be able to do about fixing it. Due to major foot surgery on May 14, 2013, Plaintiff had to wait to schedule a follow-up appointment with Tehrani. 17. On the June 4, 2013, follow-up appointment with Tehrani, he saw the red bumed area and dent under her right eye, along with the now-prominent blue vein that had not been there prior to the April 23, 2013, Fraxel treatment. Tehrani left the room for about thirty minutes and when he retumed he said that he had trouble locating Plaintiffs pre-treatment photos to verify that the damage was indeed absent prior to the Fraxel treatment, but Tehrani confirmed that it had not been there before the Fraxel treatment. 18. Tehrani said to Plaintiff that it would be possible to improve the appearance from the bum damage by sclerosing the blue vein (injecting it with a solution that makes it collapse and disappear), as well as using Restylane an injectable skin filler to plump out the dent. Tehrani said for Plaintiff to retum in a month to see how the bumed area was coming along, and that Tehrani would decide then how to proceed to try to fix the appearance of the bum. 19. Plaintiff retumed for another follow-up on July 16, 2013. At this visit, Tehrani decided that Restylane filler was best to improve the appearance of the bum damage under the right eye. An appointment for the Restylane injection took place on July 30, 2013, during which Tehrani proceeded to begin the Restylane injections under both eyes. When questioned by Plaintiff, Tehrani responded that she would like the results. 20. Plaintiff was never informed that she would have to pay for Tehrani's attempts to correct his own mistake. Upon leaving Tehrani's office, the receptionist stopped Plaintiff and said the fee was $780.00. Plaintiff was stunned, and told her to please check with Tehrani since it was her understanding that there would not be a charge. However, Tehrani had the audacity to Page 4 of 8
confirm that there would be a charge. Tehran! then also had the audacity to harass Plaintiff for payment and even reported her to a collections agency. 21. Plaintiffs damages do not end there. Even after the Restylane injections there was still a very noticeable dent present, along with the prominent blue vein that looked like a bruise. In other words, even following Tehran!'s attempts to fix her appearance, he failed to do so. 22. Plaintiff had to seek advice from a dermatologist as well as from another physician whose specialty was vein sclerosing, to have him remove the prominent blue vein that the Fraxel bum had caused. Thus far, these additional treatments to correct the appearance under her right eye fi-om the Fraxel bum damage have cost her $3,500.00. 23. While the sclerosing treatment to remove the blue vein is expected to be a permanent fix, unfortunately the Restylane filler is only temporary and will need to be repeated approximately twice a year, indefinitely. At today's prices, that means Plaintiff can expect to spend at least $800.00 per year just to keep the dent under her eye from returning. As for the red mark that the bum caused on the skin (in addition to the dent and bruised coloring from the damaged vein), there is no treatment that can fix that except for time. The dismpted texture on the skin, however, can be expected to remain for an undetermined amount of time. F I R S T C A U S E O F A C T I O N (Negligence) 24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 25. In treating Plaintiff, Defendants owed a duty to her to use the degree of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed and exercised by physicians in like cases and use due care to treat patients in a safe and proper manner. Page 5 of 8
26. The Defendants each were careless, reckless and negligent in failing to properly use the Fraxel laser on Plaintiff, in allowing Plaintiff to be burned and scarred. 27. The Defendants each were careless, reckless and negligent by failing to utilize proper precautionary steps to ensure that Plaintiff did not get burned by the Fraxel laser. 28. The Defendants each were careless, reckless and negligent by failing to properly use the Fraxel laser. 29. Defendants each otherwise increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and were otherwise careless, negligent and reckless. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered severe and painful injury, shock and mental anguish. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for damages, attorney fees and costs as allowed by law; and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. S E C O N D C A U S E O F A C T I O N (Negligence and Negligent Supervision) 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and ever>' paragraph of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 32. Defendant Tehrani owed a duty to Plaintiff to supervise his inexperienced staff while using the Fraxel laser. 33. Defendant breached its duty owing to Plaintiff by carelessly and negligently failing to supervise his staff. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered severe and painful injury, shock and mental anguish. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for damages, attorney fees and costs as allowed by law; and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. Page 6 of 8
T H I R D C A U S E O F A C T I O N (Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress) 35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every allegation of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 36. The foregoing acts were engaged in by all Defendants with the foreseeability that they would cause extreme emotional distress to Plaintiff. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of all Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for damages, attorney fees and costs as allowed by law; and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. F O U R T H C A U S E O F A C T I O N (Vicarious Liabilitv/Respondeat Superior) 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every paragraph of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 39. Defendants, John Doe/Jane Doe, were acting within the scope of their employment for Defendant APS when they performed a procedure on Plaintiff using the Fraxel laser and were otherwise careless, reckless and negligent. 40. Defendant APS is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees and/or agents. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for relief against the Defendants for the sum of $100,000.00 in the form of: (a) compensatory damages; (b) incidental damages; (c) consequential damages; Page 7 of 8
(d) punitive damages; (e) interest; (f) attorney's fees; (g) costs of suit; and (h) for such further relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable in this action. LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT MALONE, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: November 7, 2014 By: Elliott Malone, Esq. Law Offices of Elliott Malone, Esq. LLC 720 E. Palisade Ave., Suite 102 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 201-608-5221 (office) 866-382-6287 (fax) em@emalonelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Page 8 of 8