SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X RICH MIELE, : Plaintiff, : AMENDED COMPLAINT -against- : Index No. 154048/2016 SUELLEN EPSTEIN and KIDSKILLS, INC., : ------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants. : X Plaintiff Rich Miele, through his attorneys, Frey & Kozak, LLP, as and for his claims against Defendants Suellen Epstein and Kidskills, Inc. d/b/a Childrens Tumbling, alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This action arises out of the intentional and unreasonable conduct by the (" Epstein" Defendants, Suellen Epstein ("Epstein") and Kidskills Inc., d/b/a Childrens Tumbling (the "Business" "Defendants" "Business") (Epstein and the Business are collectively referred to as "Defendants"), which have engaged in a campaign of harassment against Plaintiff and his family with the intent of interfering (" Plaintiff' with Plaintiff, Rich Miele's ("Plaintiff"), private use and/or enjoyment of his residence. Plaintiff and his family reside in a condominium located at 9 Murray Street, #10NW, New York, NY (the "Apartment" "Apartment"). Defendant resides in unit 10NE directly adjacent to the Apartment and also operates the Business from this unit. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Rich Miele, is an individual who at all relevant times has resided in the City, County and State of New York. 1 j of 6
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Epstein, is an individual who at all relevant times has been a resident of the City, County and State of New York. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Business has its primary place of operation in the City, County and State of New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Venue and Jurisdiction are proper in this Court as this matter and Plaintiff's causes of action arise from events complained of which occurred in the City, County and State of New York. FACTS 6. On or about November 17, 2014, Plaintiff and his landlord executed a lease for the Apartment which granted Plaintiff and his family the right to use and occupy the Apartment. 7. At all relevant times herein and until the present, Plaintiff and his family, including his three (3) and one (1) year old children, have occupied the Apartment in accordance with the Lease. 8. The Apartment is adjacent to a unit that, upon information and belief, has been owned and occupied by Defendants for the previous twenty-five (25) years. Upon information and belief, Epstein is a member and President of the condominium board for the condominium association in which the Apartment is located. 9. There are three (3) large windows located in the living room of the Apartment that are approximately three (3) feet wide by eight (8) feet high, which face directly across from three (3) similarly large windows located in Defendants unit. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's windows are located approximately fifty (50) feet across from windows. 2 2 of 6
10. Soon after Plaintiff began to occupy the Apartment, the landlord advised Plaintiff that Epstein had complained that the light emanating from Plaintiff's television was "bothering her." Furthermore, the landlord advised Plaintiff that Epstein had demanded that Plaintiff lower the blinds in his living room each and every time that his television was turned on. At some time thereafter, Epstein personally relayed her demands to Plaintiff. 11. In response to Epstein's demands, Plaintiff explained that it would be impossible for him, along with all other neighbors in the surrounding residential buildings whose televisions can be seen from both Plaintiff's and Defendant's units, to lower their blinds each and every time they turn on their televisions. Rather, in an attempt to resolve Epstein's concerns and as a neighborly gesture, Plaintiff offered to pay to install remote control blinds in living room windows so that she would have the ability to close same with minimal effort every time she was bothered by a television in the area. 12. Without explanation, Defendants rejected Plaintiff's offer and installed a series of large extra-bright spotlights against her windows in her unit for the purpose of directing those spotlights through the windows and directly into Plaintiff's Apartment. Defendants would shine the spotlights into Plaintiff's Apartment every evening at sundown until late into the night. 13. The spotlights cause Plaintiff's entire living room to fill up with bright light every single night and have entirely disrupted and destroyed Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the Apartment. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendants have gone so far as to install a timer on the spotlights so that they would continue to shine into Plaintiff's Apartment every single night that Epstein was away on vacation. Additionally, at one point in time, Defendants installed a large 3 3 of 6
nightclub like strobe light and began shining those spinning color lights into Plaintiff's Apartment in addition to the spotlights. 15. Defendants even installed one large Broadway style spotlight and began shining that light directly into Plaintiff's Apartment. This spotlight was positioned in front most window and therefore shines directly onto Plaintiff's bathroom doorway and bathroom, which is utilized by Plaintiff, his wife, and his two (2) young children, who have been repeatedly exposed to anyone looking in the windows as a direct result of the spotlights. 16. As a direct result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff and his family have been unable to quietly enjoy the use and occupancy of the Apartment as they are entitled to do pursuant to law and the terms of the Lease. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendants have previously engaged in harassment campaigns against prior tenants in the Apartment, including, for example, installing large and powerful speakers on or near the common wall to the Apartment and blasting loud music in the Apartment at all hours of the night for the sole purpose of harassing a previous tenant of the Apartment. That previous tenant, upon information and belief, who also resided in the Apartment with his young family, was eventually left no choice but to vacate the Apartment as a result of continued harassment. 18. Plaintiff has attempted to speak to Epstein in order to resolve the issues contained of within this Complaint, but Epstein has refused to engage Plaintiff, refusing to answer her door and immediately running away from Plaintiff and his family when they have encountered one another in common areas. 4 4 of 6
19. Although Plaintiff and Epstein reside on the same floor, Epstein has avoided any contact with Plaintiff and his family in person but continues to harass Plaintiff and his family from within the closed doors of her apartment. 20. continued campaign of harassment has become more frequent and intense and, aside from substantially interfering with Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his home. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Private Nuisance) 21. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1" through "20" as though herein at length set forth. 22. Plaintiff is the lessee of the Apartment located at 9 Murray Street, #10NW, New York, NY, and therefore has a legal interest in the property. 23. Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the Apartment is being substantially interfered with by Defendants campaign of intentional harassment, which includes, without limitation, shining bright spot lights into the Apartment at all hours of the night. 24. intentional and unreasonable conduct is the direct cause for the substantial interference with Plaintiff's the use and enjoyment of his home. 25. As a direct result of Defendants action, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (INJUNCTION) 26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1" through "25" as though herein at length set forth. 27. intentional campaign of harassment against Plaintiff is substantially interfering with his ability to quietly use and enjoy his home as he is entitled to do. 5 5 of 6
28. Plaintiff's loss of the quiet use and enjoyment of the Apartment is causing him to suffer substantial irreparable harm. 29. An injunction against Defendants is required in order to prevent the intentional conduct from continuing and thereby preventing Plaintiff from suffering irreparable harm. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Suellen Epstein and Kidskills Inc., d/b/a Childrens Tumbling, as follows: 1. On the first cause of action, judgment against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action; 2. On the second cause of action, permanent injunctive relief against Defendants preventing Defendants from continuing to engage in a campaign of harassment against Plaintiff and his family; and 3. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including, without limitation the costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys' fees. Dated: New York, New York March 23, 2017 Yours, etc. FREY & KOZAK LLP By: Zachary A. Kozak 119 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor New York, New York 10003 (212) 381-9212 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rich Miele 6 6 of 6