Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2016 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 523101/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2016
SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEWYORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
x Index No.:
MINEL IOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON, Date Purchased:
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff designates
KINGS COUNTYaS the
-against- place of trial.
BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA,IOSEPH DERGAN,
SARINA CRANAGE, STACEY MARTINDALE, The basis of venue is:
AMER HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER The place ofoccurrence
And THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, SUMMONS
Plaintiffresides at:
574F,.92n4 Sffeet
Defendants. Brooklyn NY 11236
X
To the above named Defendants
You are hereby summoned, to answer the complaint in tìis action and to
serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with tttis summons, to serve a
notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the dgy of service for within 30 days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the SAte 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 complaint.
A COPY OF THIS SUMMONS WAS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT, KINGS COUNTY, ON
IN coMPtlANcE wlTH CPLRIQ3OS(aJ $306(aJ.
Dated: NewYorh NY LLP
December 28,20L6
BY
DOUGLAS
for Plaintiff|OHNSON
Park Place - Suite 1100
NewYork, NY 10007
(2L2) 406-1600
DEFENDANTS ADDRESSES:
BERNARD RIMPEL
UMESH MISHRA
JOSEPH DERGAN
SARINA CRANAGE
STACEY MARTINDALE
AMER HOMSI
DAVID SCHANER
THE BROOKTYN HOSPITAL CENTER
121 DeKalb Avenue
Brooklyn NY 11201
1 of 7
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COLTNTY OF KINGS
x
MINEL JOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON, Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
-against- VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA, JOSEPH
DERGA}T, SARINA CRA}IAGE, STACEY
MARTINDALE, AMER HOMSI, DAVID
SCHANER and THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL
CENTER,
Defendants.
-----------------x
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, as and for their Verified Complaint, allege upon information
and belief:
AS A X'IRST CAUSE OI'ACTION ['O R TNJIIRED PLAINTIf,'X'
l. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individual defendants were or represented
themselves to be physicians or nurses duly licensed in the State of New York for the practice of
their profession.
2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, each defendant facility was and still is a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State ofNew York.
3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, each defendant facility owned, operated, managed,
maintained and controlled a medical facilþ, known by the above name, for the care of sick and
ailing persons.
4. At all times mentioned herein, the individual defendants were the agents, servants and/or
employees of each other and the named facility, were acting in the furtherance of the business of
each other, and were united in interest with each other.
L
2 of 7
5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants, their agents, servants, partners and/or
employees, undertook and agreed to render medical care to the plaintiff herein and did render
certain treaûnent between March 24,2014 and July 29,2014.
6. The defendantso their agents, servants and/or employees were negligent in the services
rendered for and on behalf of the plaintiff, in neglecting to use reasonable ca¡e in the services
rendered plaintiff, in neglecting to heed plaintiffs condition, in negligently departing from
accepted practices in the services rendered to plaintift in failing to follow good practice, in
performing contraindicated procedures on the plaintift in failing to perform indicated procedures,
in failing to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and in failing to advise the plaintiff of the
risks inherent in, the purpose of, and the advantage of the procedures to be employed, or the lack
thereof, the risk to health and life of proceeding or not proceeding, the available alternatives, and
the risks and advantages involved herein.
7. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was rendered sick and disabled, suffered injuries,
pain and mental anguish, was compelled to seek medical care and was permanently injured and
disabled.
8. All of the foregoing occurred without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff
contributing thereto.
g. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was damaged in a sum in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which might otherwise have jwisdiction.
AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SPOUSE
10. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every prior applicable allegation with the same
force and effect as if alleged in full.
2
3 of 7
ll. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs were husband and wife, and as a spouse,
plaintiff was entitled to ttre service and society of said injured plaintiff and was responsible for
care, and medical expenses of the ir{ured plaintiff.
12. By reason of the foregoing, injured plaintiffs spouse was deprived of the services of a
spouse and did expend money for expenses.
13. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in a sum in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which might otherwise have jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on the First Cause of
Action and on the Second Cause of Action together with interestso costs and disbursements.
GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
I I Pa¡k Place - Suite I100
New York, New York 10007
(212) 406-1600
3
4 of 7
ATTORNEY' S VERX'ICATION
PRESTON J. DOUGLAS, an attorney-at-law duly admitted to practice in the State ofNew
York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
l. I am the attorney for the plaintif(s) herein.
2. The foregoing COMPLAINT is true to my knowledge, except as to those matters therein
stated to be alleged upon information and beliet and that as to those matters, I believe them to be
true. The grounds as to matters stated upon information and belief are the results of investigations
and information received while acting as an attorney.
3. I further state that the reason this Verification is made by me and not by the plaintiff is that
the plaintiff is not within the County of New York, where I maintain my office.
Dated: New York, New York
December 28,2016
4
5 of 7
ATTORNEY'S CERTTT'ICATE OF UPruT
PRESTON J. DOUGLAS, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, and
a member of the fïrm of GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP attorneys for the plaintiff in the within action has
reviewed the facts of this case and consulted with at least one physician who is licensed to practice in this
state or some other state and who the undersigned attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the
relevant issues involved in this particular action and that the undersigned attorney has concluded on the
basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of this action.
Dated: New YorkNY
December 28,2016
5
6 of 7
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index No:
MINEL JOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
- against -
BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA, JOSEPH DERGAN, SARINA CRANAGE, STACEY
MARTINDALE, AMER HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER and THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTE&
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPTAINT
GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP
Attorneys for Plai ntiff(s)
11 Park Place
NewYorÇ NewYork 10007
Telephone: (21 2) 406-1600
an admitted to practice in the
u and belief and after
document are not frivolous,
or that if it was, the attorney
a pa in the matter or
in violation of 22
Signature
DATED: December 28, 20L6
Seruice of a copy of the within is hereby
admitted.
Dated
Attorney(s) for
GURFEIN DOUGLAS ttP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON
11 Park Place, Suite 1100
NewYorÇ NY 10007
(212) 406-1600
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2016 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 523101/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEWYORK COUNTY OF KINGS x Index No.: MINEL IOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON, Date Purchased: Plaintiffs, Plaintiff designates KINGS COUNTYaS the -against- place of trial. BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA,IOSEPH DERGAN, SARINA CRANAGE, STACEY MARTINDALE, The basis of venue is: AMER HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER The place ofoccurrence And THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, SUMMONS Plaintiffresides at: 574F,.92n4 Sffeet Defendants. Brooklyn NY 11236 X To the above named Defendants You are hereby summoned, to answer the complaint in tìis action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with tttis summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the dgy of service for within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the SAte 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 complaint. A COPY OF THIS SUMMONS WAS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT, KINGS COUNTY, ON IN coMPtlANcE wlTH CPLRIQ3OS(aJ $306(aJ. Dated: NewYorh NY LLP December 28,20L6 BY DOUGLAS for Plaintiff|OHNSON Park Place - Suite 1100 NewYork, NY 10007 (2L2) 406-1600 DEFENDANTS ADDRESSES: BERNARD RIMPEL UMESH MISHRA JOSEPH DERGAN SARINA CRANAGE STACEY MARTINDALE AMER HOMSI DAVID SCHANER THE BROOKTYN HOSPITAL CENTER 121 DeKalb Avenue Brooklyn NY 11201 1 of 7 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COLTNTY OF KINGS x MINEL JOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON, Index No.: Plaintiffs, -against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA, JOSEPH DERGA}T, SARINA CRA}IAGE, STACEY MARTINDALE, AMER HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER and THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, Defendants. -----------------x Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, as and for their Verified Complaint, allege upon information and belief: AS A X'IRST CAUSE OI'ACTION ['O R TNJIIRED PLAINTIf,'X' l. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individual defendants were or represented themselves to be physicians or nurses duly licensed in the State of New York for the practice of their profession. 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, each defendant facility was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State ofNew York. 3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, each defendant facility owned, operated, managed, maintained and controlled a medical facilþ, known by the above name, for the care of sick and ailing persons. 4. At all times mentioned herein, the individual defendants were the agents, servants and/or employees of each other and the named facility, were acting in the furtherance of the business of each other, and were united in interest with each other. L 2 of 7 5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants, their agents, servants, partners and/or employees, undertook and agreed to render medical care to the plaintiff herein and did render certain treaûnent between March 24,2014 and July 29,2014. 6. The defendantso their agents, servants and/or employees were negligent in the services rendered for and on behalf of the plaintiff, in neglecting to use reasonable ca¡e in the services rendered plaintiff, in neglecting to heed plaintiffs condition, in negligently departing from accepted practices in the services rendered to plaintift in failing to follow good practice, in performing contraindicated procedures on the plaintift in failing to perform indicated procedures, in failing to obtain the informed consent of the plaintiff and in failing to advise the plaintiff of the risks inherent in, the purpose of, and the advantage of the procedures to be employed, or the lack thereof, the risk to health and life of proceeding or not proceeding, the available alternatives, and the risks and advantages involved herein. 7. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was rendered sick and disabled, suffered injuries, pain and mental anguish, was compelled to seek medical care and was permanently injured and disabled. 8. All of the foregoing occurred without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto. g. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which might otherwise have jwisdiction. AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SPOUSE 10. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every prior applicable allegation with the same force and effect as if alleged in full. 2 3 of 7 ll. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs were husband and wife, and as a spouse, plaintiff was entitled to ttre service and society of said injured plaintiff and was responsible for care, and medical expenses of the ir{ured plaintiff. 12. By reason of the foregoing, injured plaintiffs spouse was deprived of the services of a spouse and did expend money for expenses. 13. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which might otherwise have jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on the First Cause of Action and on the Second Cause of Action together with interestso costs and disbursements. GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs I I Pa¡k Place - Suite I100 New York, New York 10007 (212) 406-1600 3 4 of 7 ATTORNEY' S VERX'ICATION PRESTON J. DOUGLAS, an attorney-at-law duly admitted to practice in the State ofNew York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury: l. I am the attorney for the plaintif(s) herein. 2. The foregoing COMPLAINT is true to my knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and beliet and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true. The grounds as to matters stated upon information and belief are the results of investigations and information received while acting as an attorney. 3. I further state that the reason this Verification is made by me and not by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is not within the County of New York, where I maintain my office. Dated: New York, New York December 28,2016 4 5 of 7 ATTORNEY'S CERTTT'ICATE OF UPruT PRESTON J. DOUGLAS, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, and a member of the fïrm of GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP attorneys for the plaintiff in the within action has reviewed the facts of this case and consulted with at least one physician who is licensed to practice in this state or some other state and who the undersigned attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in this particular action and that the undersigned attorney has concluded on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of this action. Dated: New YorkNY December 28,2016 5 6 of 7 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No: MINEL JOHNSON and ANSEL JOHNSON Plaintiff, - against - BERNARD RIMPEL, UMESH MISHRA, JOSEPH DERGAN, SARINA CRANAGE, STACEY MARTINDALE, AMER HOMSI, DAVID SCHANER and THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTE& Defendants. VERIFIED COMPTAINT GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP Attorneys for Plai ntiff(s) 11 Park Place NewYorÇ NewYork 10007 Telephone: (21 2) 406-1600 an admitted to practice in the u and belief and after document are not frivolous, or that if it was, the attorney a pa in the matter or in violation of 22 Signature DATED: December 28, 20L6 Seruice of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated Attorney(s) for GURFEIN DOUGLAS ttP Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON 11 Park Place, Suite 1100 NewYorÇ NY 10007 (212) 406-1600 7 of 7