Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings ---------------------------------------------------------------X Zofia Zebzda, Plaintiff, Donna Rhodes, - - against - - Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X Date Summons Filed: June 16, 2017 Index SUMMONS Plaintiff designates County of Kings as place of trial. The basis of venue is: County of Subject Property 880 Lorimer Street Brooklyn, New York 11222 TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on Plaintiff s attorney within twenty (20) 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 thirty (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: New York, New York June 07, 2017 Biolsi Law Group P.C. By: Steven Alexander Biolsi Attorney for Plaintiff Zofia Zebzda 111 Broadway, Suite 606 New York, NY, 10006 212-706-1385 Fax 718-504-6427 (for Court s use Only) sabiolsi@sabiolsi.com 1 of 14
To: Pro-Se Defendant Donna Rhodes 880 Lorimer Street Apartment 1L Brooklyn, NY 11222 2 of 14
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings ---------------------------------------------------------------X Zofia Zebzda, Plaintiff, Index Complaint Donna Rhodes, - - against - - Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff Zofia Zebzda, through counsel, Biolsi Law Group P.C., respectfully complains of Defendant and alleges: 1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of the County of Kings, City and State of New York. 2. Defendant is an adult resident of the County of Kings, City and State of New York. 3. This action is brought to set aside a stipulation of settlement, to modify the terms mistakenly entered into, or to strike the portions of such stipulation which, upon due diligence, cannot be performed. 4. On January 11, 1991, Plaintiff purchased the subject real property located at and commonly known as 880 Lorimer Street, Brooklyn, New York. Annexed herewith as Exhibit A and fully incorporated herein is a copy of Plaintiff s recorded deed. 5. The Subject Property is a 6-family dwelling unit. 6. The Subject Property is registered with the State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal. 3 of 14
7. The DHCR registration number for the Subject Property is 336252. 8. The Subject Property is also registered with the City of New York and has a Multiple Dwelling Registration Number: 336252. 9. Prior to such purchase, Defendant, as a rent-stabilized tenant, rented apartment 1L of the Subject Property from Plaintiff. 10. Plaintiff as the owner in fee simple and lawfully entitled to the immediate and continued possession and occupation of the subject property. 11. Plaintiff currently resides at 125 Greenpoint Avenue, Apartment C4, Brooklyn, 11222 (on the 3 rd floor of such address) as a tenant of someone else s property. 12. In addition to paying rent to someone else, Plaintiff cannot climb stairs without enormous pain and effort. 13. Furthermore, Plaintiff, at 77 years of age, rightfully desires to, enjoy and personally use her own property. 1 14. On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant settled a Personal Use Holdover Proceeding wherein Plaintiff, as Petitioner, sued Defendant, as Respondent, to recover the demised premises pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code, Section 2524.4. Annexed herewith as Exhibit B and incorporated herein is the Stipulation of Settlement. 15. On that date, Plaintiff also tendered a lease renewal for two years for the Defendant. 1 The other first-floor apartment unit, 1R, is rented by Plaintiff s daughter and Plaintiff has the lawful right to select to personally use 1L and no lawful obligation to either remove her daughter from 1R or to move into 1R with her daughter. 4 of 14
16. Soon thereafter, Defendant agreed to the lease renewal terms. 17. This lease renewal voided, canceled, or otherwise rescinded the terms of Stipulation of Settlement. 18. Defendant signed the lease renewal of her own free will. 19. Defendant s agreement to renew the lease operates as a ratification of the lease terms and, consequently, voids the March 30, 2012 Stipulation or, at a minimum, warrants a striking of language of such stipulation that cannot be performed with due diligence. 20. In any event, since 2012, Plaintiff engaged in due diligence to secure an apartment of equivalent or superior value at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area. 21. Among other things, Plaintiff engaged real estate brokers throughout the neighborhood to assist her in securing such new apartment for Defendant. 22. Despite Plaintiff s due diligence, no such apartment can be located. 23. As a matter of law, the settlement terms within the Stipulation of Settlement contains a mistake. 24. Whether by unilateral or bilateral mistake, the mistake must be vacated, cancelled, voided, or modified so that Plaintiff can use, enjoy and personally occupy her property as allowed by law. 25. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiff never authorized her attorney to agree to bind Plaintiff to events that, despite even the greatest diligence, cannot be performed. 5 of 14
26. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment vacating, canceling, voiding, or modifying the Stipulation of Settlement. 27. Plaintiff request trial by jury. 28. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. That the March 30, 2012 Stipulation be set aside, vacated, voided, and canceled; or, alternatively, 2. That the provision (2) of the March 30, 2012 Stipulation be amended such that where it reads and will offer the respondent based on her documented disability an equivalent or superior apt at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area pursuant to law be modified to and will, with due diligence, attempt to locate an apartment for the respondent based on her documented disability an equivalent or superior apt at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area pursuant to law 3. That the plaintiff recover her costs, disbursements and allowances against the defendant; and, 4. That the plaintiff have such other and further relief as to the court may deem just, equitable and proper. Dated: New York, New York June 07, 2017 Biolsi Law Group P.C. By: Steven Alexander Biolsi Attorney for Plaintiff Zofia Zebzda 111 Broadway, Suite 606 6 of 14
New York, NY, 10006 212-706-1385 Fax 718-504-6427 (for Court s use Only) sabiolsi@sabiolsi.com 7 of 14
8 of 14
Exhibit A 9 of 14
10 of 14
11 of 14
Exhibit B 12 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/16/2017 01:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 511885/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/16/2017 13 of 14
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings Index: Zofia Zebzda, Plaintiff, Donna Rhodes, - - against - - Defendant. Summons and Complaint Biolsi Group Law Biolsi Law Group, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 606 New York, NY 10006 (212) 706-1385 sabiolsi@sabiolsi.com By: Steven Alexander Biolsi Attorneys For: PlaintiffZofia Zebzda I, Steven Alexander Biolsi, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of this State, hereby certify that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the papers annexed hereto or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). New York, New York June 07, 2017 Steven Alexander Biolsi 14 of 14