Preview
05/18/2023 06:35
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:02 PM
AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
EXHIBIT A
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
ALI BABA HOTEL CORP., d/b/a AMSTERDAM
COURT HOTEL and EAST SIDE INN, d/b/a THE :
: Index No. ___________/2022
MARCEL AT GRAMERCY,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
- against - :
: SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS
ALEXANDER PROSE, REHAN KAPADIA, and :
BELLA MANDOKI, CARLOS CARRILLO, AND :
THALIA HERRERA : Venue is based on the county in which
: Plaintiffs are incorporated.
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the amended complaint in this action and
to serve a copy of your answer or, if the amended complaint is not served with this summons, to
serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs’ attorneys within 20 days after service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this
summons 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 relief demanded in
the complaint.
Dated: New York, New York
December June 30__, 2022
1
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
KUCKER MARINO
WINIARSKY & BITTENS, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
___________________________
By: ERIC R. McAVEY, ESQ.
ALAN KUCKER, ESQ.
747 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 869-5030
emcavey@kuckermarino.com
Defendants’ Addresses:
ALEXANDER PROSE
321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1101
New York, New York 10010
ALEXANDER PROSE
326 Starr Street, Apartment #3F
Brooklyn, New York 11237
BELLA MANDOKI
321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1103
New York, New York 10010
REHAN KAPADIA
321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 814
New York, New York 10010
CARLOS CARRILLO
321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1003
New York, New York 10010
THALIA HERRERA
321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 704
New York, New York 10010
2
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
ALI BABA HOTEL CORP. d/b/a AMSTERDAM :
:
COURT HOTEL and EAST SIDE INN, L.L.C.
: Index No. __________________
d/b/a THE MARCEL AT GRAMERCY,
:
:
Plaintiffs, : VERIFIED AMENDED
: COMPLAINT
- against – :
:
ALEXANDER PROSE, REHAN KAPADIA, and :
BELLA MANDOKI, CARLOS CARRILLO, AND :
THALIA HERRERA :
:
:
:
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
Plaintiffs ALI BABA HOTEL CORP., d/b/a AMSTERDAM COURT HOTEL (the
“Amsterdam Hotel”) and EAST SIDE INN, d/b/a THE MARCEL AT GRAMERCY Hotel (the
“Marcel Hotel”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through its attorneys, Kucker Marino
Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP, as and for its Verified Amended Complaint against Defendants
ALEXANDER PROSE (“Prose”), BELLA MANDOKI (“Mandoki”), and REHAN KAPADIA
(“Kapadia”), CARLOS CARRILLO (“Carrillo”), AND THALIA HERRERA (“Herrera”)
(collectively, the “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In the Summer of 2019, a dispute arose between Defendant Prose and the
Amsterdam Hotel concerning Prose’s occupancy at the hotel. The dispute was resolved by entry
into an agreement entitled “Surrender Agreement” whereby in exchange for a substantial payment
from the Amsterdam Hotel to Prose, Prose warranted and agreed, among other things, that he
would never again occupy any other unit or in the Amsterdam Hotel or any of the hotels affiliated
3
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
with the Amsterdam Hotel. It now appears that Prose never intended to honor his promise under
the Surrender Agreement. Instead, commencing on or about October 20, 2021 and continuing to
the present, Prose materially breached his promise in the Surrender Agreement by occupying a
unit at the Marcel Hotel, one of the hotels affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel.
2. What’s worse, Prose, together with the other Defendants named above, have
embarked upon an campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance aimed at the Marcel Hotel
and its lawful guests and occupants which, upon information and belief, is maliciously purposed
to extort and illegally extract additional, unwarranted payments to vacate. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Marcel Hotel brings this action against Defendants seeking a permanent injunction against
Defendants’ to prohibit any and all further harassment and nuisances caused by Defendants, as
well as to recover monetary damages caused thereby, together with an award of punitive damages
by reason of Defendants’ malicious conduct.
THE PARTIES
3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs are domestic corporations, organized and
authorized to do business in the State of New York, County of New York.
4. Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel is the owner and operator of the hotel and building
known as the “Amsterdam Court Hotel” located at 226 West 50th Street, New York, New York
10019 also known as the “Amsterdam Court Hotel in Times Square.”
5. Plaintiff Marcel Hotel is the owner and operator of the hotel and building known
as and located at 321 Third Avenue, New York, New York, also known as “The Marcel at
Gramercy.”
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Prose is a natural person and resident of
the State of New York, County of New York.
4
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
7. Defendant Prose currently occupies Unit 1101 in the Marcel Hotel (“Prose’s
Unit”).
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kapadia is a natural person and resident
of the State of New York, County of New York.
9. Defendant Kapadia currently occupies Unit 814 in the Marcel Hotel.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mandoki is a natural person and resident
of the State of New York, County of New York.
11. Defendant Mandoki currently occupies Unit 1103 in the Marcel Hotel.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carrillo is a natural person and resident of
the State of New York, County of New York.
13. Defendant Carrillo currently occupies Unit 1003 in the Marcel Hotel.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Herrera is a natural person and resident of
the State of New York, County of New York.
11.15. Defendant Herrera currently occupies Unit 704 in the Marcel Hotel.
12.16. The Amsterdam Hotel and the Marcel Hotel are affiliated hotels, as both hotels are
owned, managed and operated by the same group of individuals.
THE SURRENDER AGREEMENT AND PROSE’S BREACH THEREOF
13.17. On or about July 26, 2019, Prose was the occupant of Unit 312 in the Amsterdam
Hotel.
14.18. Thereafter, the Amsterdam Hotel and Defendant Prose entered into the Surrender
Agreement wherebyAgreement whereby Prose agreed and warranted, among other things, that he
would surrender occupancy of his unit at the Amsterdam Hotel and that he would never again
occupy or rent any unit or room at the Amsterdam Court or at any hotel or building affiliated with
5
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
the Amsterdam Court, in exchange for a substantial monetary payment by Amsterdam Court to
Prose.
15.19. The Amsterdam Hotel duly performed all of its obligations under the Surrender
Agreement, including making the substantial payment to Prose on July 26, 2019 as required
thereunder.
16.20. Notwithstanding Prose’s promise, and despite being informed that the Marcel Hotel
is affiliated with the Amsterdam Court, since October 20, 2021 and continuing to the present, Prose
has occupied Unit 1101 of the Marcel Hotel. Defendant Prose has thereby breached the Surrender
Agreement, entitling Amsterdam Court to recover all damages resulting therefrom, including a
disgorgement of the substantial monetary payment made by the Amsterdam Hotel to Prose under
the Surrender Agreement.
DEFENDANTS’ CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT, ANNOYANCE AND NUISANCE
17.21. As hereinabove alleged, despite being told that the Marcel Hotel is affiliated with
the Amsterdam Hotel and that his occupancy violated the express terms of the Surrender
Agreement, since October 19, 2021 and continuing to the present, Prose has occupied Unit 1101
of the Marcel Hotel and has refused to relinquish such occupancy despite demand therefore.
18.22. What’s worse, since Prose’s occupancy, he has embarked upon a campaign of
harassment, annoyance and nuisance against the Marcel Hotel, and has enlisted and/or coordinated
with the other above-named Defendants in that campaign and conspiracy with the purpose of, upon
information and belief, extorting and extracting pecuniary gain from the Marcel Hotel.
19.23. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel,
which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting
in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Prose engaged in the following acts:
6
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(a) On or about October 20, 2021, Defendant Prose demanded a rent-stabilized
lease for Unit 1101 at the Marcel Hotel, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel,
and Unit 1101, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws
applicable to SRO restricted buildings.;
(a)(b) On or about October 29, 2021, an unfounded and false complaint that the
Marcel Hotel was “shaking and/or vibrating” was made to New York City
through a call to “311” that originated from Prose’s Unit (the “Vibration
Complaint”).
(b)(c) Upon information and belief, the Vibration Complaint was made by Prose
and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction.
(c)(d) In response to the Vibration Complaint, the New York City Department of
Buildings (“DOB”) appeared at the Marcel Hotel to investigate same but found
that the Vibration Complaint was without any basis in fact.
(d)(e) On or about that same day, an unfounded and false report was made to the
to the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) that there was a “smoke
condition” on the third floor of the Marcel Hotel that originated from Prose’s
Unit (the “Prose Smoke Complaint”).
(e)(f) Upon information and belief, the Prose Smoke Complaint was made by
Prose and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction.
(f)(g) Upon information and belief, in making the Prose Smoke Complaint, Prose
and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction falsely represented to
be an employee working at the front desk of the Marcel Hotel;
7
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(g)(h) The FDNY responded to the Prose Smoke Complaint, appeared at Marcel
Hotel to investigate the purported “smoke condition” therein and found that the
complaint was without any basis in fact.
(h)(i) The very next day, on October 30, 2021, without the consent of the Marcel
Hotel, Prose sought to host a large gathering or “party” on the tenth (10th) and
eleventh (11th) floor lounges at the Marcel Hotel, having distributed flyers and
invitations publicly and online, including on the website “Eventbrite”
(“Unpermitted Halloween Party”).
(i)(j) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose had full knowledge
that he lacked permission to organize or host the Unpermitted Halloween Party
at the Marcel Hotel.
(j)(k) The Unpermitted Halloween party necessitated that the Marcel Hotel close
off the lounges to its lawful occupants and guests, thereby depriving them of
the beneficial use and enjoyment of same, and to post security at the lounges to
prevent trespassing by unauthorized visitors whom had been invited there by
Prose.
(k)(l) In furtherance of his campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance, on
December 8, 2021, Prose appeared in the lobby of the Marcel Hotel dressed
inappropriately in only a robe, plugged in an electric grill, and began grilling a
food in the lobby (“Grilling Incident”).
(l)(m) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose had full knowledge
that such inappropriate attire and that cooking/grilling was not permitted in the
lobby and that the Grilling Incident created a violation of the Fire Code of the
8
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
City of New York and an endangerment to the health and welfare of the Marcel
Hotel and its occupants and guests.
(m)(n) On December 18, 2021, again without the permission of the Marcel Hotel,
Prose and one or more of the above-named Co-Defendants whom had enlisted
in his campaign of harassment against the Marcel Hotel, organized, set up and
presided over an unauthorized “party” or gathering in the lobby of the Marcel
Hotel, offering up pizza, hats, socks, gloves and alcoholic beverages, including
beer, to the other occupants and guests of the hotel, as well members of the
public that he had invited into the hotel but who had no association or with the
hotel and permission to enter and gather therein (“Lobby Party”).
(n)(o) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose and his co-
defendants who participated in the organization and/or execution of the Lobby
Party did so with full knowledge that they had no permission or right to do so,
that the Lobby Party was not permitted, and that it constituted a nuisance and
endangerment of the safety and security of the Marcel Hotel and its occupants.
(o)(p) The Marcel Hotel was thereby forced to close off its lobby, which thereby
disrupted its business and annoyed the lawful occupants and guest of the hotel.
(p)(q) Thereafter, on January 3, 2022, an unfounded and false report was made to
the FDNY and Con Edison (“Con Ed”) that the odor of gas was emanating
from eleventh (11th) and twelfth (12th) floors of the Marcel Hotel (the “Prose
Gas Complaint”).
(q)(r) Upon information and belief, the Prose Gas Complaint was made by Prose
and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction.
9
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(r)(s) The FDNY and Con Ed responded to the Prose Gas Complaint, appeared at
Marcel Hotel to investigate the purported “gas condition” therein and found
that the Prose Gas Complaint was without any basis in fact.
20.24. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel,
which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting
in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Mandoki engaged in the following
acts:
(a) On December 5, 2021, Mandoki checked-in and began occupancy in unit 1103
of the Marcel Hotel (“Mandoki’s Unit”).
(a) On or about December 5, 2021, Mandoki demanded a rent-stabilized lease for
Mandoki’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Mandoki’s Unit,
are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to
SRO restricted buildings.
(b) On or about December 7, 2021, an unfounded and false complaint was made to
New York City through a call to “311” that originated from Mandoki’s Unit
that the Marcel Hotel was engaging in construction activities without a permit
(“Construction Complaint”).
(c) Upon information and belief, the Construction Complaint was made by
Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction.
(d) The Construction Complaint was unfounded and false, as confirmed by the
DOB when they appeared at the hotel to investigate the false complaint.
(e) Additionally, also on or about December 7, 2021, an unfounded and false report
that originated from Mandoki’s Unit was made to the FDNY that there was a
10
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
“smoke condition” on the third floor of the Marcel hotel (“Mandoki Smoke
Complaint”).
(f) Upon information and belief, the Mandoki Smoke Complaint was made by
Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction.
(g) Upon information and belief, in making the Mandoki Smoke Complaint,
Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction represented
that the complaint was being placed from Unit 311 of the Marcel Hotel
(h) The Mandoki Smoke Complaint was confirmed to be unfounded and false by
the FDNY when it appeared at the Marcel Hotel and found the Mandoki Smoke
Complaint to be without any basis in fact.
(i) Upon information and belief, Mandoki, together with at least one or more of
his Co-Defendants, including Defendant Prose, organized, set up and
participated in the Lobby Party.
(j) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mandoki and her co-
defendants who participated in the organization and/or execution of the Lobby
Party did so with full knowledge that they had no permission or right to do so,
that the Lobby Party was not permitted, and that it constituted a nuisance and
endangerment of the safety and security of the Marcel Hotel and its occupants.
21.25. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel,
which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting
in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Kapadia engaged in the following
acts:
11
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(a) On December 17, 20121, Kapadia “checked-in” and began occupancy of Unit
814 of the Marcel Hotel (“Kapadia’s Unit”).
(b) On or about December 17, 2021, Kapadia demanded a rent-stabilized lease for
Kapadia’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Kapadia’s Unit, are
not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO
restricted buildings.
(b)(c) On or about December 22, 2021, Defendant Kapadia contacted the hotel
staff of the Marcel Hotel and demanded that the second bed in Kapadia’s Unit
be removed.
(c)(d) Despite being told that removal of the bed was not permitted, and that
Kapadia’s Unit must remain in the same condition and with the same furniture
that existed at the time he began his occupancy therein, Defendant Kapadia
shortly thereafter removed the bed frame, mattress and headboard of the second
bed in Unit 814 and placed them in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the
hotel (“Bed Removal”).
(d)(e) The Bed Removal and, specifically, the placement of the aforementioned
furniture in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the hotel, constituted a fire
and safety hazard to the other occupants and guests on the eighth floor of the
hotel.
(e)(f) Moreover, upon information and belief, it was Kapadia’s intention that the
Bed Removal would cause a fire and safety hazard to the other occupants and
guests on the eighth floor of the hotel.
12
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(f)(g) In addition, the Bed Removal and the associated placement of the bed,
mattress and headboard in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the hotel
prevented access to the elevator call button for the occupants and guests on the
eighth (8th) floor, thereby interfering with the use and enjoyment of the Marcel
Hotel and further threatening the safety of such occupants and guests.
(g)(h) In this respect, upon information and belief, it was Kapadia’s intention that
the Bed Removal would prevent access to the elevator call button for the
occupants and guests on the eighth (8th) floor, consequently interfering with the
use and enjoyment of the Marcel Hotel and endangering the safety of such
occupants and guests.
26. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel,
which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting
in concert with the other-above named Defendants, Defendant Carrillo engaged in the following
acts:
(b) On or about January 27, 2022, Carrillo “checked-in” and began occupancy of
Unit 1003 of the Marcel Hotel (“Carrillo’s Unit”) with a “departure date” of
January 28, 2022.
(c) On or about January 27, 2022, Carrillo demanded a rent-stabilized lease for
Carrillo’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Carrillo’s Unit, are
not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO
restricted buildings.
13
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
(d) Subsequently, on or about January 28, 2022, Carrillo and Defendant Prose
both requested that the Marcel Hotel release a key to Carrillo’s Unit to
Defendant Prose.
27. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel,
which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting
in concert with the other-above named Defendants, Defendant Herrera engaged in the following
acts:
(a) On or about January 27, 2022, Herrera “checked-in” and began occupancy of
Unit 704 of the Marcel Hotel (“Herrera’s Unit”) with a “departure date” of
January 28, 2022.
(b) On or about January 27, 2022, Herrera demanded a rent-stabilized lease for
Herrera’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Herrera’s Unit, are
not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO
restricted buildings.
22.28. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, the
Defendants have acted concert with each other.
23.29. Specifically, on or about December 17, 2021, Kapadia, Prose and Mandoki were
observed by the Marcel Hotel’s staff fraternizing together.
24.30. Upon information and belief, during such fraternizing, Defendants collectively
discussed and planned further disruptions, annoyances and nuisances that they could, and would
create and coordinate, at the Marcel Hotel.
14
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
25.31. Indeed, when confronted by hotel staff and asked to cease and desist their behavior,
as extrapolated above, Defendant Prose announced that he was the “spokesperson” for the group
and all communications were to be directed to him and him alone.
and,
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Amsterdam Hotel Against Prose For Breach of Contract
26.32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set
forth herein.
27.33. The Surrender Agreement constitutes a binding and enforceable contract between
Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel and Prose.
28.34. Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel duly performed all of its obligations under the Surrender
Agreement, including by making the substantial monetary payment to Defendant Prose as required
by said contract.
29.35. Notwithstanding his promise and warranty in the Surrender Agreement to never
again occupy any other unit in any hotel or building affiliated with Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel, and
despite being told that the Marcel Hotel was affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel, Defendant Prose
breached the Surrender Agreement by moving into and continuously occupying Unit 1101 in the
Marcel Hotel.
30.36. Defendant Prose is therefore liable for all compensatory and consequential damages
caused thereby, thereby entitling Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel to a disgorgement of the monetary
sum paid by Amsterdam Hotel to Prose under the Surrender Agreement, together with interest
thereon, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
15
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Rescission of The Surrender Agreement
31.37. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set
forth herein.
32.38. Prose’s breach of his promise and warranty to never occupy a unit in any hotel or
building affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel constitutes a material breach of the Surrender
Agreement which substantially defeated the very purpose of the Surrender Agreement in such a
fundamental way so as to defeat the object of the parties in making the Surrender Agreement.
33.39. By reason thereof, Amsterdam Hotel is entitled to rescind the Surrender Agreement
and to compel the return of the substantial monetary payment made by Amsterdam Hotel to Prose
thereunder.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment
34.40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set
forth herein.
35.41. On or about July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel paid to Prose the substantial
monetary sum called for by the Surrender Agreement with the expectation that Prose would never
again occupy any unit in any of the hotels or buildings affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel.
36.42. Prose has retained the benefits of the substantial payment made by Amsterdam
Hotel to Prose despite having taken occupancy of Unit 1101 of the Marcel Hotel despite the fact
that Prose knew that the Marcel Hotel was affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel.
37.43. By reason thereof, Defendant Prose has been unjustly enriched to Plaintiff
Amsterdam Hotel’s detriment and equity and good conscience requires that Prose be compelled to
pay restitution to Amsterdam Hotel in the amount paid to him by Amsterdam Hotel under the
16
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
Surrender Agreement, together with interest thereon at the legal rate to the date of payment of such
restitution in an amount to be determined by the Court.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraud and Deceit
38.44. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set
forth herein.
39.45. By the Surrender Agreement, Defendant Prose represented and warranted to
Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel that if he were paid the substantial sum that was paid by Amsterdam
Hotel under the Surrender Agreement, he would never again occupy a unit in the Amsterdam Hotel
or in any hotel or building affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel.
40.46. As evidenced by the fact that shortly after entering into the Surrender Agreement
and despite being told that the Marcel Hotel was an affiliate of the Amsterdam Hotel and by his
and the Co-Defendants’ campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance, Prose never intended
to fulfill his promise and warranty under the Surrender Agreement.
41.47. At the time Prose made his representation and warranty, Prose knew that his
representation and warranty was false when made and that he never intended to fulfill his promises
under the Surrender Agreement and made such false representation and warranty with the intent
that Plaintiff the Amsterdam Hotel rely thereon, and Plaintiff the Amsterdam Hotel in fact
reasonably relied thereon to its substantial detriment by making the substantial payment to Prose
under the Surrender Agreement.
42.48. By reason thereof, and as a result of Prose’s fraudulent and deceitful conduct and
actions as aforesaid, the Amsterdam Hotel is entitled to an award to all compensatory and
consequential damages caused thereby, as well as an award of punitive damages stemming from
such malicious conduct, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
17
06/30/2022 06:35
05/18/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM
11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022
35
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022
05/18/2023
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Extortion, HarrassmentHarassment, Annoyance and Nuisance Against All Defendants
43.49. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if set forth
herein.
44.50. As hereinabove alleged, Defendant Prose, acting in concert with Defendants,
Kapadia and Mandoki, have engaged in an conspiracy and scheme to harm, harass and annoy
Plaintiff the Marcel Hotel and to disrupt and damage their lawful business, in furtherance of their
malicious campaign.
45.51. Upon information and belief, such campaign was and is purposed to unjustifiably
extort and extract monies from the Marcel Hotel in order to prevent such further wrongful actions
and disruption and damages to their businesses.
46.52. Defendants wrongful acts and conduct enumerated herein continues unabated to the
present and has included, but has not been limited to, filing multiple false and malicious complaints
of building and fire code violations with the public agencies of the City of New York; planning,
designing and hosting an unauthorized event or “party” in the lounges of the Marcel Hotel;
appearing in the lobby of the Hotel Marcel in inappropriate attire and grilling and dispensing food
and alcohol beverages in the lobby in violation of the Fire and Building Codes of the City of New
York; removing furniture from Unit 814 of the Marcel Hotel and placing such furniture in the
hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the Marcel Hotel; and organizing, setting up and participating
in an and unauthorized event or “party” in the lobby of the Marcel Hotel, including unlawfully
dispensing alcoholic beverages thereat and causing uninvit
Preview
05/18/2023 06:35 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:02 PM AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 EXHIBIT A 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- x ALI BABA HOTEL CORP., d/b/a AMSTERDAM COURT HOTEL and EAST SIDE INN, d/b/a THE : : Index No. ___________/2022 MARCEL AT GRAMERCY, : : Plaintiffs, : : - against - : : SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS ALEXANDER PROSE, REHAN KAPADIA, and : BELLA MANDOKI, CARLOS CARRILLO, AND : THALIA HERRERA : Venue is based on the county in which : Plaintiffs are incorporated. : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- x YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the amended complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer or, if the amended complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs’ attorneys within 20 days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons 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 relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York December June 30__, 2022 1 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 KUCKER MARINO WINIARSKY & BITTENS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs ___________________________ By: ERIC R. McAVEY, ESQ. ALAN KUCKER, ESQ. 747 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10017 (212) 869-5030 emcavey@kuckermarino.com Defendants’ Addresses: ALEXANDER PROSE 321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1101 New York, New York 10010 ALEXANDER PROSE 326 Starr Street, Apartment #3F Brooklyn, New York 11237 BELLA MANDOKI 321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1103 New York, New York 10010 REHAN KAPADIA 321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 814 New York, New York 10010 CARLOS CARRILLO 321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 1003 New York, New York 10010 THALIA HERRERA 321 3rd Avenue a/k/a 201 East 24th Street, Unit 704 New York, New York 10010 2 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- x ALI BABA HOTEL CORP. d/b/a AMSTERDAM : : COURT HOTEL and EAST SIDE INN, L.L.C. : Index No. __________________ d/b/a THE MARCEL AT GRAMERCY, : : Plaintiffs, : VERIFIED AMENDED : COMPLAINT - against – : : ALEXANDER PROSE, REHAN KAPADIA, and : BELLA MANDOKI, CARLOS CARRILLO, AND : THALIA HERRERA : : : : Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------- x Plaintiffs ALI BABA HOTEL CORP., d/b/a AMSTERDAM COURT HOTEL (the “Amsterdam Hotel”) and EAST SIDE INN, d/b/a THE MARCEL AT GRAMERCY Hotel (the “Marcel Hotel”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through its attorneys, Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP, as and for its Verified Amended Complaint against Defendants ALEXANDER PROSE (“Prose”), BELLA MANDOKI (“Mandoki”), and REHAN KAPADIA (“Kapadia”), CARLOS CARRILLO (“Carrillo”), AND THALIA HERRERA (“Herrera”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. In the Summer of 2019, a dispute arose between Defendant Prose and the Amsterdam Hotel concerning Prose’s occupancy at the hotel. The dispute was resolved by entry into an agreement entitled “Surrender Agreement” whereby in exchange for a substantial payment from the Amsterdam Hotel to Prose, Prose warranted and agreed, among other things, that he would never again occupy any other unit or in the Amsterdam Hotel or any of the hotels affiliated 3 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 with the Amsterdam Hotel. It now appears that Prose never intended to honor his promise under the Surrender Agreement. Instead, commencing on or about October 20, 2021 and continuing to the present, Prose materially breached his promise in the Surrender Agreement by occupying a unit at the Marcel Hotel, one of the hotels affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel. 2. What’s worse, Prose, together with the other Defendants named above, have embarked upon an campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance aimed at the Marcel Hotel and its lawful guests and occupants which, upon information and belief, is maliciously purposed to extort and illegally extract additional, unwarranted payments to vacate. Accordingly, Plaintiff Marcel Hotel brings this action against Defendants seeking a permanent injunction against Defendants’ to prohibit any and all further harassment and nuisances caused by Defendants, as well as to recover monetary damages caused thereby, together with an award of punitive damages by reason of Defendants’ malicious conduct. THE PARTIES 3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs are domestic corporations, organized and authorized to do business in the State of New York, County of New York. 4. Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel is the owner and operator of the hotel and building known as the “Amsterdam Court Hotel” located at 226 West 50th Street, New York, New York 10019 also known as the “Amsterdam Court Hotel in Times Square.” 5. Plaintiff Marcel Hotel is the owner and operator of the hotel and building known as and located at 321 Third Avenue, New York, New York, also known as “The Marcel at Gramercy.” 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Prose is a natural person and resident of the State of New York, County of New York. 4 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 7. Defendant Prose currently occupies Unit 1101 in the Marcel Hotel (“Prose’s Unit”). 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kapadia is a natural person and resident of the State of New York, County of New York. 9. Defendant Kapadia currently occupies Unit 814 in the Marcel Hotel. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mandoki is a natural person and resident of the State of New York, County of New York. 11. Defendant Mandoki currently occupies Unit 1103 in the Marcel Hotel. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carrillo is a natural person and resident of the State of New York, County of New York. 13. Defendant Carrillo currently occupies Unit 1003 in the Marcel Hotel. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Herrera is a natural person and resident of the State of New York, County of New York. 11.15. Defendant Herrera currently occupies Unit 704 in the Marcel Hotel. 12.16. The Amsterdam Hotel and the Marcel Hotel are affiliated hotels, as both hotels are owned, managed and operated by the same group of individuals. THE SURRENDER AGREEMENT AND PROSE’S BREACH THEREOF 13.17. On or about July 26, 2019, Prose was the occupant of Unit 312 in the Amsterdam Hotel. 14.18. Thereafter, the Amsterdam Hotel and Defendant Prose entered into the Surrender Agreement wherebyAgreement whereby Prose agreed and warranted, among other things, that he would surrender occupancy of his unit at the Amsterdam Hotel and that he would never again occupy or rent any unit or room at the Amsterdam Court or at any hotel or building affiliated with 5 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 the Amsterdam Court, in exchange for a substantial monetary payment by Amsterdam Court to Prose. 15.19. The Amsterdam Hotel duly performed all of its obligations under the Surrender Agreement, including making the substantial payment to Prose on July 26, 2019 as required thereunder. 16.20. Notwithstanding Prose’s promise, and despite being informed that the Marcel Hotel is affiliated with the Amsterdam Court, since October 20, 2021 and continuing to the present, Prose has occupied Unit 1101 of the Marcel Hotel. Defendant Prose has thereby breached the Surrender Agreement, entitling Amsterdam Court to recover all damages resulting therefrom, including a disgorgement of the substantial monetary payment made by the Amsterdam Hotel to Prose under the Surrender Agreement. DEFENDANTS’ CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT, ANNOYANCE AND NUISANCE 17.21. As hereinabove alleged, despite being told that the Marcel Hotel is affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel and that his occupancy violated the express terms of the Surrender Agreement, since October 19, 2021 and continuing to the present, Prose has occupied Unit 1101 of the Marcel Hotel and has refused to relinquish such occupancy despite demand therefore. 18.22. What’s worse, since Prose’s occupancy, he has embarked upon a campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance against the Marcel Hotel, and has enlisted and/or coordinated with the other above-named Defendants in that campaign and conspiracy with the purpose of, upon information and belief, extorting and extracting pecuniary gain from the Marcel Hotel. 19.23. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Prose engaged in the following acts: 6 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (a) On or about October 20, 2021, Defendant Prose demanded a rent-stabilized lease for Unit 1101 at the Marcel Hotel, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Unit 1101, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO restricted buildings.; (a)(b) On or about October 29, 2021, an unfounded and false complaint that the Marcel Hotel was “shaking and/or vibrating” was made to New York City through a call to “311” that originated from Prose’s Unit (the “Vibration Complaint”). (b)(c) Upon information and belief, the Vibration Complaint was made by Prose and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction. (c)(d) In response to the Vibration Complaint, the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) appeared at the Marcel Hotel to investigate same but found that the Vibration Complaint was without any basis in fact. (d)(e) On or about that same day, an unfounded and false report was made to the to the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) that there was a “smoke condition” on the third floor of the Marcel Hotel that originated from Prose’s Unit (the “Prose Smoke Complaint”). (e)(f) Upon information and belief, the Prose Smoke Complaint was made by Prose and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction. (f)(g) Upon information and belief, in making the Prose Smoke Complaint, Prose and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction falsely represented to be an employee working at the front desk of the Marcel Hotel; 7 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (g)(h) The FDNY responded to the Prose Smoke Complaint, appeared at Marcel Hotel to investigate the purported “smoke condition” therein and found that the complaint was without any basis in fact. (h)(i) The very next day, on October 30, 2021, without the consent of the Marcel Hotel, Prose sought to host a large gathering or “party” on the tenth (10th) and eleventh (11th) floor lounges at the Marcel Hotel, having distributed flyers and invitations publicly and online, including on the website “Eventbrite” (“Unpermitted Halloween Party”). (i)(j) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose had full knowledge that he lacked permission to organize or host the Unpermitted Halloween Party at the Marcel Hotel. (j)(k) The Unpermitted Halloween party necessitated that the Marcel Hotel close off the lounges to its lawful occupants and guests, thereby depriving them of the beneficial use and enjoyment of same, and to post security at the lounges to prevent trespassing by unauthorized visitors whom had been invited there by Prose. (k)(l) In furtherance of his campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance, on December 8, 2021, Prose appeared in the lobby of the Marcel Hotel dressed inappropriately in only a robe, plugged in an electric grill, and began grilling a food in the lobby (“Grilling Incident”). (l)(m) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose had full knowledge that such inappropriate attire and that cooking/grilling was not permitted in the lobby and that the Grilling Incident created a violation of the Fire Code of the 8 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 City of New York and an endangerment to the health and welfare of the Marcel Hotel and its occupants and guests. (m)(n) On December 18, 2021, again without the permission of the Marcel Hotel, Prose and one or more of the above-named Co-Defendants whom had enlisted in his campaign of harassment against the Marcel Hotel, organized, set up and presided over an unauthorized “party” or gathering in the lobby of the Marcel Hotel, offering up pizza, hats, socks, gloves and alcoholic beverages, including beer, to the other occupants and guests of the hotel, as well members of the public that he had invited into the hotel but who had no association or with the hotel and permission to enter and gather therein (“Lobby Party”). (n)(o) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Prose and his co- defendants who participated in the organization and/or execution of the Lobby Party did so with full knowledge that they had no permission or right to do so, that the Lobby Party was not permitted, and that it constituted a nuisance and endangerment of the safety and security of the Marcel Hotel and its occupants. (o)(p) The Marcel Hotel was thereby forced to close off its lobby, which thereby disrupted its business and annoyed the lawful occupants and guest of the hotel. (p)(q) Thereafter, on January 3, 2022, an unfounded and false report was made to the FDNY and Con Edison (“Con Ed”) that the odor of gas was emanating from eleventh (11th) and twelfth (12th) floors of the Marcel Hotel (the “Prose Gas Complaint”). (q)(r) Upon information and belief, the Prose Gas Complaint was made by Prose and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at his direction. 9 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (r)(s) The FDNY and Con Ed responded to the Prose Gas Complaint, appeared at Marcel Hotel to investigate the purported “gas condition” therein and found that the Prose Gas Complaint was without any basis in fact. 20.24. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Mandoki engaged in the following acts: (a) On December 5, 2021, Mandoki checked-in and began occupancy in unit 1103 of the Marcel Hotel (“Mandoki’s Unit”). (a) On or about December 5, 2021, Mandoki demanded a rent-stabilized lease for Mandoki’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Mandoki’s Unit, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO restricted buildings. (b) On or about December 7, 2021, an unfounded and false complaint was made to New York City through a call to “311” that originated from Mandoki’s Unit that the Marcel Hotel was engaging in construction activities without a permit (“Construction Complaint”). (c) Upon information and belief, the Construction Complaint was made by Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction. (d) The Construction Complaint was unfounded and false, as confirmed by the DOB when they appeared at the hotel to investigate the false complaint. (e) Additionally, also on or about December 7, 2021, an unfounded and false report that originated from Mandoki’s Unit was made to the FDNY that there was a 10 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 “smoke condition” on the third floor of the Marcel hotel (“Mandoki Smoke Complaint”). (f) Upon information and belief, the Mandoki Smoke Complaint was made by Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction. (g) Upon information and belief, in making the Mandoki Smoke Complaint, Mandoki and/or others acting on his behalf and/or at her direction represented that the complaint was being placed from Unit 311 of the Marcel Hotel (h) The Mandoki Smoke Complaint was confirmed to be unfounded and false by the FDNY when it appeared at the Marcel Hotel and found the Mandoki Smoke Complaint to be without any basis in fact. (i) Upon information and belief, Mandoki, together with at least one or more of his Co-Defendants, including Defendant Prose, organized, set up and participated in the Lobby Party. (j) Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Mandoki and her co- defendants who participated in the organization and/or execution of the Lobby Party did so with full knowledge that they had no permission or right to do so, that the Lobby Party was not permitted, and that it constituted a nuisance and endangerment of the safety and security of the Marcel Hotel and its occupants. 21.25. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting in concert with the other above-named Defendants, Defendant Kapadia engaged in the following acts: 11 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (a) On December 17, 20121, Kapadia “checked-in” and began occupancy of Unit 814 of the Marcel Hotel (“Kapadia’s Unit”). (b) On or about December 17, 2021, Kapadia demanded a rent-stabilized lease for Kapadia’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Kapadia’s Unit, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO restricted buildings. (b)(c) On or about December 22, 2021, Defendant Kapadia contacted the hotel staff of the Marcel Hotel and demanded that the second bed in Kapadia’s Unit be removed. (c)(d) Despite being told that removal of the bed was not permitted, and that Kapadia’s Unit must remain in the same condition and with the same furniture that existed at the time he began his occupancy therein, Defendant Kapadia shortly thereafter removed the bed frame, mattress and headboard of the second bed in Unit 814 and placed them in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the hotel (“Bed Removal”). (d)(e) The Bed Removal and, specifically, the placement of the aforementioned furniture in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the hotel, constituted a fire and safety hazard to the other occupants and guests on the eighth floor of the hotel. (e)(f) Moreover, upon information and belief, it was Kapadia’s intention that the Bed Removal would cause a fire and safety hazard to the other occupants and guests on the eighth floor of the hotel. 12 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (f)(g) In addition, the Bed Removal and the associated placement of the bed, mattress and headboard in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the hotel prevented access to the elevator call button for the occupants and guests on the eighth (8th) floor, thereby interfering with the use and enjoyment of the Marcel Hotel and further threatening the safety of such occupants and guests. (g)(h) In this respect, upon information and belief, it was Kapadia’s intention that the Bed Removal would prevent access to the elevator call button for the occupants and guests on the eighth (8th) floor, consequently interfering with the use and enjoyment of the Marcel Hotel and endangering the safety of such occupants and guests. 26. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting in concert with the other-above named Defendants, Defendant Carrillo engaged in the following acts: (b) On or about January 27, 2022, Carrillo “checked-in” and began occupancy of Unit 1003 of the Marcel Hotel (“Carrillo’s Unit”) with a “departure date” of January 28, 2022. (c) On or about January 27, 2022, Carrillo demanded a rent-stabilized lease for Carrillo’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Carrillo’s Unit, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO restricted buildings. 13 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 (d) Subsequently, on or about January 28, 2022, Carrillo and Defendant Prose both requested that the Marcel Hotel release a key to Carrillo’s Unit to Defendant Prose. 27. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, which has resulted in great harm and disruption to the Marcel Hotel and its occupants, while acting in concert with the other-above named Defendants, Defendant Herrera engaged in the following acts: (a) On or about January 27, 2022, Herrera “checked-in” and began occupancy of Unit 704 of the Marcel Hotel (“Herrera’s Unit”) with a “departure date” of January 28, 2022. (b) On or about January 27, 2022, Herrera demanded a rent-stabilized lease for Herrera’s Unit, despite the fact that the Marcel Hotel, and Herrera’s Unit, are not subject to the Rent Stabilization laws and related laws applicable to SRO restricted buildings. 22.28. In furtherance of Defendants’ campaign to harass and annoy the Marcel Hotel, the Defendants have acted concert with each other. 23.29. Specifically, on or about December 17, 2021, Kapadia, Prose and Mandoki were observed by the Marcel Hotel’s staff fraternizing together. 24.30. Upon information and belief, during such fraternizing, Defendants collectively discussed and planned further disruptions, annoyances and nuisances that they could, and would create and coordinate, at the Marcel Hotel. 14 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 25.31. Indeed, when confronted by hotel staff and asked to cease and desist their behavior, as extrapolated above, Defendant Prose announced that he was the “spokesperson” for the group and all communications were to be directed to him and him alone. and, AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Amsterdam Hotel Against Prose For Breach of Contract 26.32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set forth herein. 27.33. The Surrender Agreement constitutes a binding and enforceable contract between Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel and Prose. 28.34. Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel duly performed all of its obligations under the Surrender Agreement, including by making the substantial monetary payment to Defendant Prose as required by said contract. 29.35. Notwithstanding his promise and warranty in the Surrender Agreement to never again occupy any other unit in any hotel or building affiliated with Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel, and despite being told that the Marcel Hotel was affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel, Defendant Prose breached the Surrender Agreement by moving into and continuously occupying Unit 1101 in the Marcel Hotel. 30.36. Defendant Prose is therefore liable for all compensatory and consequential damages caused thereby, thereby entitling Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel to a disgorgement of the monetary sum paid by Amsterdam Hotel to Prose under the Surrender Agreement, together with interest thereon, in an amount to be determined by the Court. 15 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Rescission of The Surrender Agreement 31.37. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set forth herein. 32.38. Prose’s breach of his promise and warranty to never occupy a unit in any hotel or building affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel constitutes a material breach of the Surrender Agreement which substantially defeated the very purpose of the Surrender Agreement in such a fundamental way so as to defeat the object of the parties in making the Surrender Agreement. 33.39. By reason thereof, Amsterdam Hotel is entitled to rescind the Surrender Agreement and to compel the return of the substantial monetary payment made by Amsterdam Hotel to Prose thereunder. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment 34.40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set forth herein. 35.41. On or about July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel paid to Prose the substantial monetary sum called for by the Surrender Agreement with the expectation that Prose would never again occupy any unit in any of the hotels or buildings affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel. 36.42. Prose has retained the benefits of the substantial payment made by Amsterdam Hotel to Prose despite having taken occupancy of Unit 1101 of the Marcel Hotel despite the fact that Prose knew that the Marcel Hotel was affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel. 37.43. By reason thereof, Defendant Prose has been unjustly enriched to Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel’s detriment and equity and good conscience requires that Prose be compelled to pay restitution to Amsterdam Hotel in the amount paid to him by Amsterdam Hotel under the 16 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 Surrender Agreement, together with interest thereon at the legal rate to the date of payment of such restitution in an amount to be determined by the Court. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud and Deceit 38.44. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if fully set forth herein. 39.45. By the Surrender Agreement, Defendant Prose represented and warranted to Plaintiff Amsterdam Hotel that if he were paid the substantial sum that was paid by Amsterdam Hotel under the Surrender Agreement, he would never again occupy a unit in the Amsterdam Hotel or in any hotel or building affiliated with the Amsterdam Hotel. 40.46. As evidenced by the fact that shortly after entering into the Surrender Agreement and despite being told that the Marcel Hotel was an affiliate of the Amsterdam Hotel and by his and the Co-Defendants’ campaign of harassment, annoyance and nuisance, Prose never intended to fulfill his promise and warranty under the Surrender Agreement. 41.47. At the time Prose made his representation and warranty, Prose knew that his representation and warranty was false when made and that he never intended to fulfill his promises under the Surrender Agreement and made such false representation and warranty with the intent that Plaintiff the Amsterdam Hotel rely thereon, and Plaintiff the Amsterdam Hotel in fact reasonably relied thereon to its substantial detriment by making the substantial payment to Prose under the Surrender Agreement. 42.48. By reason thereof, and as a result of Prose’s fraudulent and deceitful conduct and actions as aforesaid, the Amsterdam Hotel is entitled to an award to all compensatory and consequential damages caused thereby, as well as an award of punitive damages stemming from such malicious conduct, in an amount to be determined by the Court. 17 06/30/2022 06:35 05/18/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 11:40 PM 11:02 AM INDEX NO. 150993/2022 35 125 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 06/30/2022 05/18/2023 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023 AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Extortion, HarrassmentHarassment, Annoyance and Nuisance Against All Defendants 43.49. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation stated above as if set forth herein. 44.50. As hereinabove alleged, Defendant Prose, acting in concert with Defendants, Kapadia and Mandoki, have engaged in an conspiracy and scheme to harm, harass and annoy Plaintiff the Marcel Hotel and to disrupt and damage their lawful business, in furtherance of their malicious campaign. 45.51. Upon information and belief, such campaign was and is purposed to unjustifiably extort and extract monies from the Marcel Hotel in order to prevent such further wrongful actions and disruption and damages to their businesses. 46.52. Defendants wrongful acts and conduct enumerated herein continues unabated to the present and has included, but has not been limited to, filing multiple false and malicious complaints of building and fire code violations with the public agencies of the City of New York; planning, designing and hosting an unauthorized event or “party” in the lounges of the Marcel Hotel; appearing in the lobby of the Hotel Marcel in inappropriate attire and grilling and dispensing food and alcohol beverages in the lobby in violation of the Fire and Building Codes of the City of New York; removing furniture from Unit 814 of the Marcel Hotel and placing such furniture in the hallway of the eighth (8th) floor of the Marcel Hotel; and organizing, setting up and participating in an and unauthorized event or “party” in the lobby of the Marcel Hotel, including unlawfully dispensing alcoholic beverages thereat and causing uninvit