Preview
INDEX NO. 151722/2014
FILED: NEW) YORK COUNTY CLERK 0272572014)
NYSCEF DOC. NO} 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MANUEL ALICEA, Index No.:
Plaintiff designates New York
Plaintiff, County as the place of trial.
SUMMONS
-against-
The basis of venue is:
Plaintiff's place of residence.
1350 BROADWAY LLC and NEWMARK & COMPANY
REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT Plaintiff resides at:
FRANK, 170 Avenue D, Apt. 2E
New York, N.Y. 10009
Defendants. County of New York
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: New York, New York
February 21, 2014
SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK
McGRATH & CANNAVO PC.
By
Me P. Serle
Attorneys laintiff
Office and P.O. Address
120 Broadway — 18" Floor
New York, New York 10271
(212) 732-9000
Page 1 of2
Defendants address:
1350 Broadway LLC Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc.
c/o Solil Management d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank
640 Fifth Avenue - 3 Floor 125 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10019 New York, N.Y. 10017
FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT ON
Page 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-.
MANUEL ALICEA,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.:
1350 BROADWAY LLC, and NEWMARK & COMPANY
REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB
KNIGHT FRANK,
Defendants.
wen ee nnn ne nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn
Plaintiff, MANUEL ALICEA, by his attorneys, Sullivan Papain Block McGrath &
Cannavo P.C., complaining of the defendants, 1350 BROADWAY LLC and NEWMARK &
COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK, herein,
alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1 At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff, MANUEL ALICEA (hereinafter also
referred to as “PLAINTIFF”), was and still is a resident of County, City and State of New York.
2 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY LLC
(hereinafter also referred to as “1350 BROADWAY”), 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, with a principal place of business in the County, City and State of New York
3 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained,
and still maintains, a principal place of business at 1350 Broadway, New York, New York.
4 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained,
and still maintains, a principal place of business at 640 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor, New York,
New York.
Page 1 of 6
5 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK & COMPANY
REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK (hereinafter also referred
to as “NEWMARK”), was, and still is, was, and still is, a domestic business corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with a principal
place of business in the County, City and State of New York.
6 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained, and still
maintains, a principal place of business at 125 Park Avenue, New York 10017.
7
At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, owned the
premises located at 1350 Broadway, New York, New York (hereinafter also referred to as
“subject premises”).
8 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, owned the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
9 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, controlled the
subject premises.
10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, controlled the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, operated the
subject premises.
12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, operated the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained
the subject premises.
Page 2 of 6
14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained
the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, managed the
subject premises.
16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, managed the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, was the lessee of the
subject premises.
18. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, was the lessee of the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
19. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, controlled the
subject premises.
20. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, controlled the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
21. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, operated the subject
premises.
22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, operated the subject
premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
23. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained the
subject premises.
24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained the
subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
Page 3 of 6
25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, managed the subject
premises.
26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, managed the subject
premises, including the lobby of the subject premises.
27. On or about February 2, 2013, PLAINTIFF was lawfully in the lobby of the
subject premises.
28. At the aforementioned time and place, PLAINTIFF, while traversing the
aforementioned area, was caused to fall and/or was precipitated to the ground.
29. As a result of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF was injured.
30. As a result of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF was seriously injured.
31. The aforementioned occurrence and injuries resulting there from were caused by
the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, its agents,
servants, lessees, and/or employees, in the ownership, operation, maintenance, management and
control of the subject premises.
32. The aforementioned occurrence and injuries resulting there from were caused by
the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of defendant, NEWMARK, its agents, servants,
lessees, and/or employees, in the ownership, operation, maintenance, management and control of
the subject premises.
33. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR Section 1601 do not apply.
34, The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR Section 1601 do not apply by reason
of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR Section 1602, including Section 1602(2).
Page 4 of 6
35. By reason of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount in
excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts in which this action could otherwise have
been brought.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against defendants, 1350
BROADWAY and NEWMARK, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lowers
courts in which this action could otherwise have been brought, and in an amount to be
determined by a jury upon the trial of this action, together with interest and the costs and
disbursements of this action.
Dated: New York, New York
February 21, 2014
Yours, etc.,
SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK
McGRATH & CANNAVO P.C.
By:
M P. Serle
Attorneys’ Plaintiffs
120 Broadway — 1 8" Floor
New York, New York 10271
(212) 732-9000
Page 5 of 6
VERIFICATION
MEIGAN P. SERLE, an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice in the Courts of this
State, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
I am an associate of the firm of SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK MCGRATH &
CANNAVO P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff in the above action.
I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and upon
information and belief, deponent believes the matters alleged therein to be true.
The source of deponent’s information and the grounds of his belief are communications,
papers, reports and investigations contained in the file
Dated: New York, New York
February 21, 2014
MEIGAN P. RL
Sworn to before me this
21* day of February, 2014 TO.
Notary Fublic, State of New York
2, Sued Sue Sry, ‘by
en
jlotary Public
Page
6 of 6
Preview
INDEX NO. 151722/2014 FILED: NEW) YORK COUNTY CLERK 0272572014) NYSCEF DOC. NO} 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK MANUEL ALICEA, Index No.: Plaintiff designates New York Plaintiff, County as the place of trial. SUMMONS -against- The basis of venue is: Plaintiff's place of residence. 1350 BROADWAY LLC and NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT Plaintiff resides at: FRANK, 170 Avenue D, Apt. 2E New York, N.Y. 10009 Defendants. County of New York 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: New York, New York February 21, 2014 SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK McGRATH & CANNAVO PC. By Me P. Serle Attorneys laintiff Office and P.O. Address 120 Broadway — 18" Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 732-9000 Page 1 of2 Defendants address: 1350 Broadway LLC Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. c/o Solil Management d/b/a Newmark Grubb Knight Frank 640 Fifth Avenue - 3 Floor 125 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019 New York, N.Y. 10017 FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT ON Page 2 of 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -. MANUEL ALICEA, VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: 1350 BROADWAY LLC, and NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK, Defendants. wen ee nnn ne nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn Plaintiff, MANUEL ALICEA, by his attorneys, Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C., complaining of the defendants, 1350 BROADWAY LLC and NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK, herein, alleges upon information and belief as follows: 1 At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff, MANUEL ALICEA (hereinafter also referred to as “PLAINTIFF”), was and still is a resident of County, City and State of New York. 2 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY LLC (hereinafter also referred to as “1350 BROADWAY”), 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, with a principal place of business in the County, City and State of New York 3 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained, and still maintains, a principal place of business at 1350 Broadway, New York, New York. 4 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained, and still maintains, a principal place of business at 640 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor, New York, New York. Page 1 of 6 5 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a NEWMARK GRUBB KNIGHT FRANK (hereinafter also referred to as “NEWMARK”), was, and still is, was, and still is, a domestic business corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business in the County, City and State of New York. 6 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained, and still maintains, a principal place of business at 125 Park Avenue, New York 10017. 7 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, owned the premises located at 1350 Broadway, New York, New York (hereinafter also referred to as “subject premises”). 8 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, owned the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 9 At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, controlled the subject premises. 10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, controlled the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, operated the subject premises. 12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, operated the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained the subject premises. Page 2 of 6 14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, maintained the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, managed the subject premises. 16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, managed the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, was the lessee of the subject premises. 18. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, was the lessee of the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 19. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, controlled the subject premises. 20. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, controlled the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 21. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, operated the subject premises. 22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, operated the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 23. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained the subject premises. 24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, maintained the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. Page 3 of 6 25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, managed the subject premises. 26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, NEWMARK, managed the subject premises, including the lobby of the subject premises. 27. On or about February 2, 2013, PLAINTIFF was lawfully in the lobby of the subject premises. 28. At the aforementioned time and place, PLAINTIFF, while traversing the aforementioned area, was caused to fall and/or was precipitated to the ground. 29. As a result of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF was injured. 30. As a result of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF was seriously injured. 31. The aforementioned occurrence and injuries resulting there from were caused by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of defendant, 1350 BROADWAY, its agents, servants, lessees, and/or employees, in the ownership, operation, maintenance, management and control of the subject premises. 32. The aforementioned occurrence and injuries resulting there from were caused by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of defendant, NEWMARK, its agents, servants, lessees, and/or employees, in the ownership, operation, maintenance, management and control of the subject premises. 33. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR Section 1601 do not apply. 34, The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR Section 1601 do not apply by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR Section 1602, including Section 1602(2). Page 4 of 6 35. By reason of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts in which this action could otherwise have been brought. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against defendants, 1350 BROADWAY and NEWMARK, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lowers courts in which this action could otherwise have been brought, and in an amount to be determined by a jury upon the trial of this action, together with interest and the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: New York, New York February 21, 2014 Yours, etc., SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK McGRATH & CANNAVO P.C. By: M P. Serle Attorneys’ Plaintiffs 120 Broadway — 1 8" Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 732-9000 Page 5 of 6 VERIFICATION MEIGAN P. SERLE, an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice in the Courts of this State, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury: I am an associate of the firm of SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK MCGRATH & CANNAVO P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff in the above action. I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and upon information and belief, deponent believes the matters alleged therein to be true. The source of deponent’s information and the grounds of his belief are communications, papers, reports and investigations contained in the file Dated: New York, New York February 21, 2014 MEIGAN P. RL Sworn to before me this 21* day of February, 2014 TO. Notary Fublic, State of New York 2, Sued Sue Sry, ‘by en jlotary Public Page 6 of 6