Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 1270272016 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 521456/2016
| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
i
!
|
}
i
}
|
i
/
COUNTY OF KINGS
woe netinnannnewansnenannnnnneunnarnmnnansanennennnasiitnemmnmmn X Index No.
2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC,
Date Filed:
Plaintiff(s),
SUMMONS
-against-
Plaintifi(s) designate Kings
HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & County. The basis of the
CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, yenue designated is
Defendant(‘s) place of
Defendant(s). business.
neneenntennttnn inate nmtinaninennnnnnnennnnnnnetnnlntnennentmmanl x
Defendants(s) address:
4702. 16" Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11204
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintif{(s)
attorney an answer to the Verified Complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after
the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days
after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the
State of New York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you
by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint.
Dated: Great Neck, New York
December 1, 2016
Yours, etc,
GREENBLATT & AGULNICK,P.C.,
By: iF Ee C
Scott E. Agulnick, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC
55 Northern Blvd., Suite 302
Great Neck, New York
Tel: (718) 352- 4800
Fax: (718) 732-2110
1 of 15Defendants’ Addresses:
HOWARD LEVY
4702 16" Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11204
OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA
P.O. Box 10800
702 Oberlin: Road
Raleigh, NC 27605-0800
2 of 15i
i
i
i
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
coeennneneeneenennaannannatennnunesciunanbunuunmenaonninninnnnnte x
2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC,
Plaintiff(s),
Index No.
~against-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE &
CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Defendant(s).
aemunnondeennnnnnnusnanamennnunnninnnninnnenamtuan annem x
Plaintiffs) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC, by his attorneys,
GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C., for its Verified Complaint against the
Defendant(s), alleges as follows:
1. That at all mentioned times hereinafter, Plaintiff(s) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE
TERRACE, LLC (hereinafter “KINGSBRIDGE”) is a domestic limited liability company
duly formed under the laws of the State of New York with its principle place of business
located at 2662 Kingsbridge Terrace, in the County of Bronx, City and State of New
York.
2. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned,
Defendant, HOWARD LEVY (hereinafter “LEVY”) is an individual domiciled in the
State of New York with a principle place of business located at 4702 16" Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11204,
3. That Defendant OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF
NORTH CAROLINA (“Insurance Company”) is a foreign corporation with its principle
offices located at 702 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, NC 27605-0800.
3 of 15/
4, Insurance Company, its subsidiary, broker and/or agent is an insurance
company licensed, admitted, engaging in, and/or authorized to engage in the business of
casualty and property insurance throughout the United States, including within the State
of New York, with offices for the transaction of business located within the State of New
York.
5. That Defendant LEVY holds himself out to the public as being a licensed
insurance broker and agent in the State of New York, which allows him to represent
customers who desire to obtain insurance for themselves, theit homes, or their properties
and procure insurance from various insurers, including Defendant Insurance Company.
6. Defendant LEVY holds himself out to the community as being an expert
in the field of procuring insurance coverage for its customers from various insurers,
including Defendant Insurance Company.
7. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable
interest in the real property commonly referred to as 2662 Kingsbridge Avenue, Bronx,
New York 10463 (the "Property"), in the County of Bronx, City and State of New York.
8. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable
interest in the building, contents, fixtures, completed additions, and completed operations
located at the Property.
9. That immediately prior to the time Plaintiff purchased the Property, on or
about August 15, 2015, Plaintiff advised LEVY that it required an all risk insurance
coverage policy for the Property.
10. That Plaintiff articulated to LEVY the state of the Property, its vacancy,
that work and corrective repairs was required on the Property, and that plans were being
contemplated for work on the Property.
4 of 1511, That Plaintiff was candid and forthright about the condition of the
Property and its vacancy, to the extent that Defendant LEVY searched for, and viewed
the Property using Google Street View and/or other internet sources.
12, That Defendant LEVY expressly advised that he would procure an
insurance policy with the coverage requested by Plaintiff and did procure an insurance
policy through Defendant Insurance Company.
13. That Defendant LEVY did not request nor require that Plaintiff complete
any insurance application or provide any additional information other than that pertaining
to the condition of the Property, that it was vacant, and certain repairs that were of a
priority nature.
14. That Plaintiff relied upon Defendant LEVY to procure insurance based
upon the condition and use articulated to Defendant LEVY and LEVY represented he
would do so.
13. That upon information and belief, LEVY procured from Defendant
Insurance Company an insurance policy for the Property, bearing the policy number
NYD110306600 (the Policy"), on or about August 15, 2016.
16. Specifically, on or about August 15, 2016, Insurance Company, its
subsidiary, and or agent, for good and valuable consideration and a premium paid, issued
to Plaintiff an insurance policy, including endorsements and amendments thereto which
became a part of said policy, bearing the policy number NYD110306600, whereby it
insured the Property and its contents against all risks of loss by certain specified perils up
to the limits contained therein, including, inter alia, water damage and vandalism. The
policy was signed by the authorized agents of the Defendant, its subsidiary, and/or agent.
5 of 1517. Pursuant to the Policy, the Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary,
and or agent agreed to insure the Plaintiff for a term of one (1) year, beginning on August
15, 2016 and expiring on August 15, 2017, against loss of property caused by, inter alia,
water damage and vandalism. The Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and/or
agent, during the policy term, agreed to indemnify the Plaintif{(s) against loss or damage
sustained by, inter alia, water damage and vandalism.
18. That relying upon Defendant LEVY’s purported expertise, experience,
and knowledge with regard to insurance and coverage and relying upon the
zepresentations made by Defendant LEVY that LEVY had properly procured the
requested policy for the Property under the circumstances, Plaintiff was led to believe by
Defendant LEVY that the proper type of insurance policy on the Property had been
procured based upon the accurate information provided by Plaintiff.
19, On or about September 13, 2016, while the insurance Policy was in full
force and effect, a loss occurred at the Property described in the policy caused by
vandalism and water escaping from broken pipe(s), which resulted in damage to the
Property and contents.
20. By reason of the above-mentioned September 13, 2016 occurrence, the
Plaintiff has sustained a direct loss by vandalism and water from broken pipe(s) in an
amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand
dollars ($400,000.00), including loss to the dwelling and contents.
21. Plaintiff notified the Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and/or
agent, of the occurrence at the aforementioned Property and of the loss sustained thereby
(hereinafter the “Claim”).
6 of 1522, Plaintiff has submitted to the Defendant's Insurance Company’s request
for a complete examination of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss, to the
extent that such was requested by Defendant Insurance Company.
23, That Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the instant suit.
2A, At all times mentioned, the Plaintiff has not obtained any other insurance
upon the described property.
25. That despite the foregoing, and despite there being no misrepresentations
or omissions by the Plaintiff, Defendant Insurance Company rescinded the Policy on or
about September 22, 2016 alleging, in sum and substance, misrepresentation and
omission in the application for insurance, and has failed to and/or refused to indemnify
the Plaintiff for his total loss, to the extent of the Policy limits, in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00), although a demand has been made, A copy of Defendant
OCCIDENTAL’s rescission letter dated September 22, 106 is annexed hereto an
incorporated by reference herein as EXHIBIT A.
26. That Defendant Insurance Comapny rescinded the subject Policy
notwithstanding the fact that Defendant LEVY had been provided accurate information
regarding the Property, its vacancy, and its condition, and Defendant LEVY had actual
knowledge of same, and that LEVY never requested nor required Plaintiff to complete an
insurance application at the time the Policy was procured by Defendant LEVY, nor did
Plaintiff complete one thereafter.
27. By reason of Defendant Insurance Company's contractual undertaking to
Plaintiff pursuant to the Policy to properly evaluate and pay claims thereunder to the
extent of Plaintiff's loss up to the limits prescribed by the Policy, Defendant Insurance
7 of 15Company owed and continues to owe Plaintiff the duties of good faith and fair dealing in
connection with the parties’ contractual relationship.
28. In accordance with the aforesaid duties of good faith and fair dealing,
Defendant Insurance Company, and its agents, was and is prohibited from undertaking
any act which would have the effect of injuring or destroying Plaintiff's rights deriving
from his contractual relationship with Insurance Company under the Policy.
29. By failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of Plaintiff's
loss up to the limits of the Policy, despite legal precedent, statutory authority, and/or
contractual obligations, and despite there being no basis to conclude that Plaintiff
misrepresented or omitted any material facts, and that Defendant LEVY procured the
Policy after having been provided with accurate information, Insurance Company acted
in bad faith and breached the duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff.
30. Plaintiff has duly demanded payment of its loss under the Policy.
AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST LEVY
31. — That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
32, That if it is held that the Policy procured by Defendant LEVY was
procured by way of providing Insurance Company with inaccurate information, then
Plaintiff received incorrect, misleading, incompetent and negligent advice and services
from Defendant LEVY.
33. That Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of Property, its
usage, vacancy, and condition.
8 of 15|
i
|
j
{
/
34, That Defendant LEVY owed a duty to the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable
skill, care, and diligence in procuring the Policy, including but not limited to rendering
advice and information in response to specific requests for coverage for the Property,
and based upon the use of the Property as articulated by Plaintiff.
35. That representations were made by Defendant LEVY that he would
procure, and did procure, an insurance policy which would provide coverage for the
Property for the subject loss, and that coverage would be effective proper for the
Property based upon the accurate information provided by Plaintiff.
36, ‘That Defendant LEVY failed to exercise reasonable care in procuring the
Policy,
37. That as a result of the Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has
sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of
four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest.
38. That as a further result of Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has
suffered additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but
believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST LEVY
39, That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above
as if more fully and completely stated herein.
40. That for consideration, Defendant LEVY undertook and agreed to procure
an insurance policy for the Property based upon the information provided by the
Plaintiff and the information known to Defendant LEVY regarding the Property.
41. That Defendant’s failures constituted breach of contract.
9 of 15:
|
|
i
|
i
/
42, That as a result of the Defendant LEVY’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has
sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of
four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest.
43. That as a further result of Defendant LEVY’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered
additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to
be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
AND AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE & SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AGAINST LEVY
44, That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above
as if more fully and completely stated herein.
45, That Defendant LEVY assumed a special relationship with Plaintiff, by,
inter alia, agreeing to procure an insurance policy for the Plaintiff and/or make the
appropriate changes to the policy, by advising and consulting with Plaintiff on the
availability of coverage, and reviewing Plaintiff's coverage needs.
46. ‘That during Plaintiff's discussions with Defendant LEVY, Plaintiff
justifiably relied upon Defendant’s unique and specialized expertise with regard to
insurance and special position of confidence and trust, and to that end Plaintiff relied
upon Defendant LEVY to give proper advice and truthful representations that LEVY
would procure a policy which provided proper coverage based upon the actual
information provided to LEVY by Plaintiff and based upon LEVY’s own observations
of the Property.
47. Based upon the special relationship between the Defendant LEVY and the
Plaintiff, an exceptional and particularized situation arose in which the Defendant LEVY
10 of 15i
:
assumed and/or acquired a duty to advise and/or direct the Plaintiff to obtain additional
or different coverage, which would provide coverage for the loss which occurred at the
Property.
48. Defendant LEVY breached his duty to the Plaintiff to advise and/or direct
the Plaintiff to obtain additional or different coverage, and/or make changes to the
Policy, which would provide full coverage for the loss which occurred at the Property.
49. As a result of Defendant LEVY’s negligent breach of its special
relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount to be determined
at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus
appropriate interest.
50. Asa further result of Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered
additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to
be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
AND AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST OCCIDENTAL
51. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations set forth in the complaint as
ifmore fully and completely stated herein.
52. By, inter alia, failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of
Plaintiff's loss, Insurance Company has breached its obligation under the Policy with
regard to the loss at the Property.
53, By rescinding a Policy post loss based upon purported
“misrepresentations” that were never made by the Plaintiff, and despite Defendant LEVY
being provided accurate information regarding the Property, Insurance Company
breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the loss at the Property.
11 of 1554, By relying upon purported grounds for rescission that were caused by the
culpable conduct of someone other than the Plaintiff Insurance Company breached its
obligation under the Policy with regard to the subject loss at the Property.
55. That by virtue of the foregoing, Insurance Company has not only breached
the subject Policy, but also its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
56. Asa result of Insurance Company's breach, Plaintiff has been damaged to
the extent of the Policy limits, in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in
excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest.
57. Asa further result of Defendant Insurance Company's breach, Plaintiff has
suffered additional consequential damages directly resulting from the Insurance
Company’s breach in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC demands
judgment against Defendants HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE &
CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA as follows:
a. Under the FIRST Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an amount
to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00).
b. Under the SECOND Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an
amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand
12 of 15t
i
dollars ($400,000.08), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to
be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00).
G Under the THIRD Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an amount
to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00).
d. Under the FOURTH Cause of Action against OCCIDENTAL FIRE &
CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, damages in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00).
e. Appropriate interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, reasonable
attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Great Neck, New York
December 1, 2016
Yours, etc.,
GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C.
bye ee at
Scott E. Aguinick
Attorneys for Plaintiffs)
2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC
55 Northern Blvd., Suite, 302
Great Neck, New York 11021
(718) 352- 4800
13 of 15ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York,
affirms the following to be true under penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing SUMMONS and VERIFIED COMPLAINT and, upon
information and belicf, believe the contents thereof to be true. The basis of my belief is a
review of the file maintained in my office. The reason I make this verification is because
my client does not reside within the county in which I maintain my office.
Dated: Great Neck, New York
December 1, 2016
SCOTT E. AGULNICK, ESQ.
14 of 15i
|
I
/
Index No:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC,
Plaintiff(s),
~against-
HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH
CAROLINA,
Defendant(s).
SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C.
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF (s)
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
55 Northern Blvd., Suite 302
Great Neck, New York 11021
Tel: (718) 352- 4800
Fax: (718) 732-2110
“WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION (FAX)”
To:
Attorney(s) for DEFENDANT(S)
Certification pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a)
It is hereby certified that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of
the paper and/or the contentions herein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-
1.4(c). alte. A aA
Dated SCOTT E. AGULNICK, ESQ.
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted
Attorney(s) for
15 of 15
Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 1270272016 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 521456/2016 | NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. i ! | } i } | i / COUNTY OF KINGS woe netinnannnewansnenannnnnneunnarnmnnansanennennnasiitnemmnmmn X Index No. 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC, Date Filed: Plaintiff(s), SUMMONS -against- Plaintifi(s) designate Kings HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & County. The basis of the CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, yenue designated is Defendant(‘s) place of Defendant(s). business. neneenntennttnn inate nmtinaninennnnnnnennnnnnnetnnlntnennentmmanl x Defendants(s) address: 4702. 16" Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11204 TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintif{(s) attorney an answer to the Verified Complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint. Dated: Great Neck, New York December 1, 2016 Yours, etc, GREENBLATT & AGULNICK,P.C., By: iF Ee C Scott E. Agulnick, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff(s) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC 55 Northern Blvd., Suite 302 Great Neck, New York Tel: (718) 352- 4800 Fax: (718) 732-2110 1 of 15Defendants’ Addresses: HOWARD LEVY 4702 16" Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11204 OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA P.O. Box 10800 702 Oberlin: Road Raleigh, NC 27605-0800 2 of 15i i i i SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS coeennneneeneenennaannannatennnunesciunanbunuunmenaonninninnnnnte x 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC, Plaintiff(s), Index No. ~against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA Defendant(s). aemunnondeennnnnnnusnanamennnunnninnnninnnenamtuan annem x Plaintiffs) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC, by his attorneys, GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C., for its Verified Complaint against the Defendant(s), alleges as follows: 1. That at all mentioned times hereinafter, Plaintiff(s) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC (hereinafter “KINGSBRIDGE”) is a domestic limited liability company duly formed under the laws of the State of New York with its principle place of business located at 2662 Kingsbridge Terrace, in the County of Bronx, City and State of New York. 2. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant, HOWARD LEVY (hereinafter “LEVY”) is an individual domiciled in the State of New York with a principle place of business located at 4702 16" Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11204, 3. That Defendant OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA (“Insurance Company”) is a foreign corporation with its principle offices located at 702 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, NC 27605-0800. 3 of 15/ 4, Insurance Company, its subsidiary, broker and/or agent is an insurance company licensed, admitted, engaging in, and/or authorized to engage in the business of casualty and property insurance throughout the United States, including within the State of New York, with offices for the transaction of business located within the State of New York. 5. That Defendant LEVY holds himself out to the public as being a licensed insurance broker and agent in the State of New York, which allows him to represent customers who desire to obtain insurance for themselves, theit homes, or their properties and procure insurance from various insurers, including Defendant Insurance Company. 6. Defendant LEVY holds himself out to the community as being an expert in the field of procuring insurance coverage for its customers from various insurers, including Defendant Insurance Company. 7. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable interest in the real property commonly referred to as 2662 Kingsbridge Avenue, Bronx, New York 10463 (the "Property"), in the County of Bronx, City and State of New York. 8. At all times hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff owned and had an insurable interest in the building, contents, fixtures, completed additions, and completed operations located at the Property. 9. That immediately prior to the time Plaintiff purchased the Property, on or about August 15, 2015, Plaintiff advised LEVY that it required an all risk insurance coverage policy for the Property. 10. That Plaintiff articulated to LEVY the state of the Property, its vacancy, that work and corrective repairs was required on the Property, and that plans were being contemplated for work on the Property. 4 of 1511, That Plaintiff was candid and forthright about the condition of the Property and its vacancy, to the extent that Defendant LEVY searched for, and viewed the Property using Google Street View and/or other internet sources. 12, That Defendant LEVY expressly advised that he would procure an insurance policy with the coverage requested by Plaintiff and did procure an insurance policy through Defendant Insurance Company. 13. That Defendant LEVY did not request nor require that Plaintiff complete any insurance application or provide any additional information other than that pertaining to the condition of the Property, that it was vacant, and certain repairs that were of a priority nature. 14. That Plaintiff relied upon Defendant LEVY to procure insurance based upon the condition and use articulated to Defendant LEVY and LEVY represented he would do so. 13. That upon information and belief, LEVY procured from Defendant Insurance Company an insurance policy for the Property, bearing the policy number NYD110306600 (the Policy"), on or about August 15, 2016. 16. Specifically, on or about August 15, 2016, Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and or agent, for good and valuable consideration and a premium paid, issued to Plaintiff an insurance policy, including endorsements and amendments thereto which became a part of said policy, bearing the policy number NYD110306600, whereby it insured the Property and its contents against all risks of loss by certain specified perils up to the limits contained therein, including, inter alia, water damage and vandalism. The policy was signed by the authorized agents of the Defendant, its subsidiary, and/or agent. 5 of 1517. Pursuant to the Policy, the Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and or agent agreed to insure the Plaintiff for a term of one (1) year, beginning on August 15, 2016 and expiring on August 15, 2017, against loss of property caused by, inter alia, water damage and vandalism. The Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and/or agent, during the policy term, agreed to indemnify the Plaintif{(s) against loss or damage sustained by, inter alia, water damage and vandalism. 18. That relying upon Defendant LEVY’s purported expertise, experience, and knowledge with regard to insurance and coverage and relying upon the zepresentations made by Defendant LEVY that LEVY had properly procured the requested policy for the Property under the circumstances, Plaintiff was led to believe by Defendant LEVY that the proper type of insurance policy on the Property had been procured based upon the accurate information provided by Plaintiff. 19, On or about September 13, 2016, while the insurance Policy was in full force and effect, a loss occurred at the Property described in the policy caused by vandalism and water escaping from broken pipe(s), which resulted in damage to the Property and contents. 20. By reason of the above-mentioned September 13, 2016 occurrence, the Plaintiff has sustained a direct loss by vandalism and water from broken pipe(s) in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), including loss to the dwelling and contents. 21. Plaintiff notified the Defendant Insurance Company, its subsidiary, and/or agent, of the occurrence at the aforementioned Property and of the loss sustained thereby (hereinafter the “Claim”). 6 of 1522, Plaintiff has submitted to the Defendant's Insurance Company’s request for a complete examination of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss, to the extent that such was requested by Defendant Insurance Company. 23, That Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the instant suit. 2A, At all times mentioned, the Plaintiff has not obtained any other insurance upon the described property. 25. That despite the foregoing, and despite there being no misrepresentations or omissions by the Plaintiff, Defendant Insurance Company rescinded the Policy on or about September 22, 2016 alleging, in sum and substance, misrepresentation and omission in the application for insurance, and has failed to and/or refused to indemnify the Plaintiff for his total loss, to the extent of the Policy limits, in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), although a demand has been made, A copy of Defendant OCCIDENTAL’s rescission letter dated September 22, 106 is annexed hereto an incorporated by reference herein as EXHIBIT A. 26. That Defendant Insurance Comapny rescinded the subject Policy notwithstanding the fact that Defendant LEVY had been provided accurate information regarding the Property, its vacancy, and its condition, and Defendant LEVY had actual knowledge of same, and that LEVY never requested nor required Plaintiff to complete an insurance application at the time the Policy was procured by Defendant LEVY, nor did Plaintiff complete one thereafter. 27. By reason of Defendant Insurance Company's contractual undertaking to Plaintiff pursuant to the Policy to properly evaluate and pay claims thereunder to the extent of Plaintiff's loss up to the limits prescribed by the Policy, Defendant Insurance 7 of 15Company owed and continues to owe Plaintiff the duties of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the parties’ contractual relationship. 28. In accordance with the aforesaid duties of good faith and fair dealing, Defendant Insurance Company, and its agents, was and is prohibited from undertaking any act which would have the effect of injuring or destroying Plaintiff's rights deriving from his contractual relationship with Insurance Company under the Policy. 29. By failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of Plaintiff's loss up to the limits of the Policy, despite legal precedent, statutory authority, and/or contractual obligations, and despite there being no basis to conclude that Plaintiff misrepresented or omitted any material facts, and that Defendant LEVY procured the Policy after having been provided with accurate information, Insurance Company acted in bad faith and breached the duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff. 30. Plaintiff has duly demanded payment of its loss under the Policy. AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST LEVY 31. — That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above as if more fully set forth at length herein. 32, That if it is held that the Policy procured by Defendant LEVY was procured by way of providing Insurance Company with inaccurate information, then Plaintiff received incorrect, misleading, incompetent and negligent advice and services from Defendant LEVY. 33. That Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of Property, its usage, vacancy, and condition. 8 of 15| i | j { / 34, That Defendant LEVY owed a duty to the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in procuring the Policy, including but not limited to rendering advice and information in response to specific requests for coverage for the Property, and based upon the use of the Property as articulated by Plaintiff. 35. That representations were made by Defendant LEVY that he would procure, and did procure, an insurance policy which would provide coverage for the Property for the subject loss, and that coverage would be effective proper for the Property based upon the accurate information provided by Plaintiff. 36, ‘That Defendant LEVY failed to exercise reasonable care in procuring the Policy, 37. That as a result of the Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest. 38. That as a further result of Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST LEVY 39, That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above as if more fully and completely stated herein. 40. That for consideration, Defendant LEVY undertook and agreed to procure an insurance policy for the Property based upon the information provided by the Plaintiff and the information known to Defendant LEVY regarding the Property. 41. That Defendant’s failures constituted breach of contract. 9 of 15: | | i | i / 42, That as a result of the Defendant LEVY’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest. 43. That as a further result of Defendant LEVY’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). AND AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE & SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AGAINST LEVY 44, That Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations set forth above as if more fully and completely stated herein. 45, That Defendant LEVY assumed a special relationship with Plaintiff, by, inter alia, agreeing to procure an insurance policy for the Plaintiff and/or make the appropriate changes to the policy, by advising and consulting with Plaintiff on the availability of coverage, and reviewing Plaintiff's coverage needs. 46. ‘That during Plaintiff's discussions with Defendant LEVY, Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendant’s unique and specialized expertise with regard to insurance and special position of confidence and trust, and to that end Plaintiff relied upon Defendant LEVY to give proper advice and truthful representations that LEVY would procure a policy which provided proper coverage based upon the actual information provided to LEVY by Plaintiff and based upon LEVY’s own observations of the Property. 47. Based upon the special relationship between the Defendant LEVY and the Plaintiff, an exceptional and particularized situation arose in which the Defendant LEVY 10 of 15i : assumed and/or acquired a duty to advise and/or direct the Plaintiff to obtain additional or different coverage, which would provide coverage for the loss which occurred at the Property. 48. Defendant LEVY breached his duty to the Plaintiff to advise and/or direct the Plaintiff to obtain additional or different coverage, and/or make changes to the Policy, which would provide full coverage for the loss which occurred at the Property. 49. As a result of Defendant LEVY’s negligent breach of its special relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest. 50. Asa further result of Defendant LEVY’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). AND AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST OCCIDENTAL 51. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations set forth in the complaint as ifmore fully and completely stated herein. 52. By, inter alia, failing to pay Plaintiff under the Policy to the full extent of Plaintiff's loss, Insurance Company has breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the loss at the Property. 53, By rescinding a Policy post loss based upon purported “misrepresentations” that were never made by the Plaintiff, and despite Defendant LEVY being provided accurate information regarding the Property, Insurance Company breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the loss at the Property. 11 of 1554, By relying upon purported grounds for rescission that were caused by the culpable conduct of someone other than the Plaintiff Insurance Company breached its obligation under the Policy with regard to the subject loss at the Property. 55. That by virtue of the foregoing, Insurance Company has not only breached the subject Policy, but also its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. 56. Asa result of Insurance Company's breach, Plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of the Policy limits, in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest. 57. Asa further result of Defendant Insurance Company's breach, Plaintiff has suffered additional consequential damages directly resulting from the Insurance Company’s breach in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC demands judgment against Defendants HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA as follows: a. Under the FIRST Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). b. Under the SECOND Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand 12 of 15t i dollars ($400,000.08), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). G Under the THIRD Cause of Action against LEVY, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). d. Under the FOURTH Cause of Action against OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00), plus appropriate interest, consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). e. Appropriate interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: Great Neck, New York December 1, 2016 Yours, etc., GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C. bye ee at Scott E. Aguinick Attorneys for Plaintiffs) 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC 55 Northern Blvd., Suite, 302 Great Neck, New York 11021 (718) 352- 4800 13 of 15ATTORNEY VERIFICATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under penalty of perjury: I have read the foregoing SUMMONS and VERIFIED COMPLAINT and, upon information and belicf, believe the contents thereof to be true. The basis of my belief is a review of the file maintained in my office. The reason I make this verification is because my client does not reside within the county in which I maintain my office. Dated: Great Neck, New York December 1, 2016 SCOTT E. AGULNICK, ESQ. 14 of 15i | I / Index No: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS 2662 KINGSBRIDGE TERRACE, LLC, Plaintiff(s), ~against- HOWARD LEVY and OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant(s). SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT GREENBLATT & AGULNICK, P.C. Attorneys for PLAINTIFF (s) Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 55 Northern Blvd., Suite 302 Great Neck, New York 11021 Tel: (718) 352- 4800 Fax: (718) 732-2110 “WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION (FAX)” To: Attorney(s) for DEFENDANT(S) Certification pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) It is hereby certified that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the paper and/or the contentions herein are not frivolous as defined in section 130- 1.4(c). alte. A aA Dated SCOTT E. AGULNICK, ESQ. Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Attorney(s) for 15 of 15