Exhibit,Appendix: Roberto Rodriguez v. Villagefh, Llc, Smi Construction Management, Inc.

On May 23, 2018 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Roberto Rodriguez, and Smi Construction Management, Inc., Villagefh, Llc, for Torts - Other (Fall) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019

Exhibit A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
YORK mDEX NO. W863/2018
[ËTLED: 'NEW COUN5'Y CLERK 05/23/2018 04 : 00. PMi
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 . RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
____________,---_____ ----- - _,-.. ____ X
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
index No

Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
- against -

VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENTINC.,

Defendants.
_____ ..._______ ___________________________x

Plaintiffdesignates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is the
8"
defendant's residence. The defendant's place of business is I11 Avenue New York, NY
1001 1.
To the above-named Defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in thisaction and to serve
a copy of your Answer, or, ifthe Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a Notice
of Appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within 20 days after the service of this Summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service iscomplete, if thisSummons
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
Complamt.

Dated: New York, New York

May 23, 20]8
Yours,et

Stavros E. Sitinas
STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York NY 10022

(212) 539-1800

TO VILLAGEFH LLC
8"'
I11 Avenue
New York, NY 1001I

SM1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT lNC.
7802
264 East Street, Ground Floor
New York, NY 10075

1 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
CLERK DEX NO. 154863/2018
FTLED: 'NEW YORK COUNTY 05/23/20.18 04 : 040 PM)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Index No

Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
- against -

VILLAGEFH LLC and SM1 CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT INC.,

Defendants.
X

Plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, by his attorneys, STA V ROS E. SITTNAS, LLC, as

and for his Verified Complaint, upon information and belief, alleges the following:

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BEHALF OF Till PLAIN_T1FF ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ

1. That at alltimes herein mentioned, the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, was

and stillisa resident of the City of Irvington and State of New Jersey.

2. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH LLC (herein

"VILLAGEFH"), was and still
is a New York corporation duly authorized to transact business in

the State of New York.

3. At alltimes hcisinafter rnentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFll was a domestic

limited liabilitycompany duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State ofNew York.

4. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, V]LLAGEFH was and stillis a

domestic business corporation, duly authorized to conduct business within the State of New

York.

2 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
FIL D:• DEX No. 1553/2018
NEW YORK COÓNTY CLERK 05/.23/2018 04 : 00
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2010

S. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VlLLAGEFM was a foreign

business corporation duly licensed to do business under and by virtue of, the laws of the State of

New York.

6. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned herein, the defendant, VlLLAGEFH, transacted

business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of

New York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial revenue

from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State ofNew York and expected or

should have reasonably expected itsacts to have consequences within the State ofNew York

and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.

7. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VlLLAGEFH, was a business

entity authorized to do business in the State of New York.

8. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the owner of

a certain premises/construction sitelocated at 27 Christopher Street, in the County, City and

State of New York (hereinafter "premises/construction site").

9. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the lessee of

the aforesaid prernises/construction site.

10. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VlLLAGEFH was the lessor of

the aforesaid premises/construction site.

I1. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VlLLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site.

12. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees roanaged the aforesaid prernises/construction site.

3 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
FILED :· NEW YÖK COUNTY CLEÊK 05/23/2018 0 4 : Ô0 PM INDEX IfO. 154863 /2018

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

13. At alltimes hercinafter mentioned. the defendant, VJLLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site.

I4. At aj|times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, V]LLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site.

15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VlLLAGEF11, by its agents,

servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site.

16. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site.

17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, V1LLAGEFH, by its agents,

servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site.

18. That at alltimes hereinafter rncntioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work, labor,

services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be

conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.

19. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, VlLLAGEFH was acting as the construction manager to provide certain work, labor,

services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be

conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.

20. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor and/or construction n,anage2 and/or

a contractor providing certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work,

repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.

4 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
YORK INDEX NO. 154863/2Ò18
(FÊJlED: NEW COÙNTY CLERK 05/.23 2018 04 00 PM)
NYsCEF DOC . NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

21. At all times hereinafter mentioned. the defendant, SM) CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENTINC (herein "SMI CONSTRUCTION") was a domestic corporation duly

licensed to do business under the laws of the State ofNew York.

22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SM) CONSTRUCTION was a

foreign corporation duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State ofNew York.

23. That at alltimes mentioned herein. the defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION

transacted business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the

State ofNew York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial

revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State ofNew York and

expected or should have reasonably expected itsacts to have consequences within the State of

New York and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.

24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION, was a

business entity authorized to do business in the State ofNew York.

25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SM1 CONSTRUCTION, was

the owner of a certain premises/construction site located at 27 Christopher Street, in the County,

City and State ofNew York (hereinafter "premises/construction site").

26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SM1 CONSTRUCTION, was

the lessee of the aforesaid premises/construction site.

27. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned. the defendant SM1 CONSTRUCTION, was

the lessor of the aforesaid premises/construction site.

28. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site.

5 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
INDEX NO. 154863j2018
FILED:: NEd YORK COUNTY CLEÈK 05t23/2018 04 : 00 _PM)
NYsCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: OS/2312018

29. At all times hereinafter mentioned. the defendant. SM1 CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees managed the aforesaid premises/construction site.

30. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site.

31. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site.

32. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site.

33. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site.

34. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its

agents, servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site.

35. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work,

labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to

be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.

36. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION was acting as the construction manager to provide certain

work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and

renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.

37. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,

defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor and/or construction

manager and/or a contractor providing certain work. labor. services and material with respect to

6 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
INDEX NO. 154863/2018
XLED: NEW YORK CUUNTY CLERK 05/.23/2018 04 :0)0 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05 j23/2018

certain work. repairs. construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid

premises/construction site.

38. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon infonnation and belief,

defendant, SM1 CONSTRUCTION was acting as an agent of the owner VILLAGEFH at the

foresaid premises/ construction site.

39. That at alltimes mentioned herein and on or prior to September 13, 2016.

construction and/or renovation and/or repair work and/or demolition work was underway at the

aforesaid premises/construction site.

40. That at on or before, September 13, 20]6 the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant.

SM1 CONSTRUCTION and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction siteon

and before September 13, 2016.

41. That at on or before, September 13, 2016 the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant,

VlLLAGEFH and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction site on and before

September 13, 2016.

42. That on or about, September 13, 2016, while acting within the scope of his

employment at the aforesaid premises/construction site, the plaintiff was injured when he was

caused to fall off a makeshift ramp/walkway which lacked any protective railing or barrier,while

carrying a bucket of construction debris, thereby causing him to sustain serious and permeant

injuries.

43. That the above occurrence was caused solely by and through the negligence of the

defendants herein, without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto.

7 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
TORK' INDEX No. 154863/2018
FILED C NEÈf COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2.018 04 : 00 PM)
NYsCEF DoC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

44. That the defendants, and/or cach of them had both actual and constructive notice

of the dangerous and defective conditions and practices complained of herein.

45. Plaintiff asserts an exemption from the abolition of joint and several liability

pursuant to Article 16 of the C.P.LR.

46. That the defendants, and/or cach of them, and/or their agents, servants, associates

and/or employees were negligent, careless and reckless, in that they:

a) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and ornitted to

properly construct, shore, equip, guard, arrange, operate and conduct the construction activities at

the construction siteas aforesaid, so as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety

to the persons so employed therein, and more particularly to the plaintiffherein.

b) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to

work;

c) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff and the workers at the

construction sitethereat, with adequate, ample and proper ladders so as to perform their labor.

d) Failed and omitted to insure that the working areas within the

premises/construction siteof the construction site as aforesaid were kept free of haz.ardous

conditions.

e) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiffwith a proper ladder.

f) Failed and omitted to provide the proper flooring.

g) Failed and omitted to properly inspect the construction siteas

aforesaid.

h) Failed and omitted to properly alad adequately coordinate the

construction activities at the construction site as aforesaid so as to prevent the various trades

8 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
IFILED:· NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. 154863/2018
05t23/2pl8 04f§0 PM_j
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

from interfering with one another.

i) Failed and omitted to construct and/or installbarricades and/or

other warnings so as to apprise workers, and more particularly the plaintiffherein, of the

dangerous conditions existing thereat.

j) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 240 of the Labor Law

of the State of New York.

k) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 24) of the Labor I aw

of the State of New York.

l) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 241-a of the Labor Law

of the State of New York.

m) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 200 of the Labor Law

of the State of New York.

n) Failed and omitted to comply with Rule 23 of the Industrial Code.

o) Failed and omitted to properly secure the work area so that plaintiff

could perform his labor in a safeenvironment.

p) Failed and omitted to keep the work areas free of debris and other

material.

q) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiffwith adequate lifting

devices.

r) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed an omitted to provide

the plaintiff with an adequate and safe means to perform his duties.

s) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to

provide the plaintiff with the proper tools to perform his duties.

9 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
FILED:· INDEX No. 154863/2018
NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23 2018 04: 00 PM
NŸ5CEF oOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

t) Were otherwise negligent, careless and reckless.

47. That as a result of the negligence of the defendants, and/or each of them. the

plaintiff,ROBERTO RODR1GUEZ, became, stillisand for a long time to come, will be sick,

sore, lame, bruised. injured, disabled and wounded in and about the various parts of his head,

limbs, body, blood vessels and surrounding tissues, and has suffered severe and extreme mental

shock, anguish and psychic injuries,and that plaintiff was otherwise injured, and upon

information and belief, said injuries are permanent. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff

was obligated to and did necessarily employ medical aid , hospital services, medicinals and

medical supplies in an attempt to cure the aforesaid injuries, and has been prevented from his

usual duties and will be so prevented for a long time to come.

48. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUE7, has been

damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of alllower Courts which would

otherwise have jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
BASED (IPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIA BILITY

49. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges

"1" "48"
each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the

same force and efféct as though each and every allegation were set forth more fullyherein at

length below.

50. That at alltimes mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016. Section 200 of the

Labor law of the State of New York was in fullforce and effect.

5 1. That at alltirnes mentioned herein, and on Septernber 13, 2016. the defendants.

and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.

10 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
INDEX No. 154863/2018
1FILED e NEW YORK COUNTV CLERK 05123/2.018 04 : 00 PM
NYSCEF DOC . NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

52. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were

in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.

53. That as a resultof the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff.

ROBERTO RODRIGUE7 was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.

54. That as a resultof the foregoing the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been

damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would

otherwise have jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY

55. That the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ repeats, reiterates and rea)Ieges each

"1" "54"
and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the same

force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at length

below.

56. That at alltimes mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 240 of the

Labor law of the State of New York was in fullforce and effect.

57. That at alltimes mentioned berein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants,

and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.

58. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were

in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.

59. That as a resuh of the statutory violation as cited herein above. the plaintiff.

ROBERTO RODR1GUEZ was caused 10 sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.

11 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
INDEX No. 1553/2018
|FILED : NEW YORK ODUNTY CLERK D5 f23_f2D18 04 : 00 PM)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 . RECE1VED NYSCEE: C5/23/2018

60. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff.ROBERTO RODR1GUE7. has been

damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would

otherwise have jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUE7
BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY

61. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges

"1" "60"
each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the

same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at

length below.
;

62. That at alltimes mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 241 of the

Labor law of the State of New York was in fullforce and effect.

63. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants,

and/or each of thern were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.

64. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were

in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.

65. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff,

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.

66. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff,ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been

damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would

otherwise have jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, ROBERTO RODR]GUEZ demands judgment against the

defendants on the First,Second, Third and Fourth Causes of action in a sum which exceeds the

12 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
05/23/2018¯
NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK INDEX NO. 154863/2018
ILEDi 04 : 00 PM)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

, jurisdictionallimit of alllower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with the

costs and disbursements of this action.

Dated: New York, New York

May 23, 2018

Yours, etc.,

STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022

(212) 539-1800

13 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
:· INDEX NO. 154863/2018
FILED ÑEÈ YORK COUNTY CLERK 05723/2018 04 : 00 PM|
NYSCEF DOC. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05 /23/2018

VERIFICATION BY ATTORNEY

Stavros E. Sitinas, an attorney duly adrnitted to practice before the Courts in the State of

New York, hereby affirrns, under the penalties of perjury, as follows:

1) That deponent is the attomey for the plaintiffin the action within; that deponent

has read the foregoing VER1FIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof; thatthe same

istrue to deponent's own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon

information and belief,and as to those rnatters deponent believes itto be true.

2) The reason that thisverification isnot made by plaintiff and ismade by deponent

is that plaintiffdoes not reside in the county where the attorneys for the plaintiffhave their office.

3) Deponent further says that the source of deponent's information and the grounds

of deponent's belief as to allmatters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are from

investigations made on behalf of said plaintiff.

Dated: New York, New York

May 23, 2018

STAVROS E. SITINAS

14 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/2019 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2019
FILED:· INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04 : OO PM)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018

Index No.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

- against -

VILLAGEFH LLC and SM1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.,

Defendants.

SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT

STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
4"'
444 Madison Avenue, Floor

New York, NY 10022

(212) 539-1800

15 of 15

Case Info

Judge

Arlene P. Bluth Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 07, 2019

Case Filing Date

May 23, 2018

County

Parties

GLEASON, MICHAEL THOMAS Attorney for the Defendant
KOLBE, GEORGE S Attorney for the Defendant
PHELAN, JOHN JOSEPH Attorney for the Defendant
PHELAN, JOHN JOSEPH Attorney for the Defendants
PREZIOSO, RICHARD C Attorney for the Defendant
Roberto Rodriguez Plaintiff
SITINAS, STAVROS E Attorney for the Plaintiff
SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendant
VILLAGEFH, LLC Defendant
Joseph Redd Attorneys for Defendants
Danielle Rudkin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROGER MCTIERNAN Attorneys for Defendants
CARMEN VASQUEZ Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.