Preview
Filing # 133722854 E-Filed 08/31/2021 09:13:49 AM
7TH
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOY FURER, GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
Plaintiff, CASE NO:
VS.
GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC,
Defendant.
i
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOY FURER, by and through her undersigned attorney, and
hereby sues Defendant, GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, and pursuant to all applicable
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure alleges as follows:
ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL COUNTS
1. This is an action for damages in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00),
exclusive of costs, attorneys' fees, and interests, and is otherwise within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
2. At all times material hereto, Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC
was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, authorized to do, and doing business in the State
of Florida. Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC (hereinafter "GG") has a
registered agent, Lancaster & Reed LLC, which is located at 50 W. Mashta Drive, Suite 6, Key
Biscayne, FL 33149.
3 At all times material hereto, Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC
owned, operated, managed, maintained, or controlledthe premises located at 2012 N Surf Road,
***
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 08/31/2021 09:13:46 AM.****
Hollywood, FL 33019. This property is located in Broward County and commonly known as the
Neptune Hollywood Beach Hotel (the "subject premises").
4. At all times material hereto, Defendant GG was responsible and vicariously liable
for the acts and omissions of their agents, employees, representatives, and servants, including but
not limited to any employees responsible for safety and security at the subject premises.
5. On January 5, 2021, PlaintiffJoy Furer was a lawful business invitee at the subject
premises.
6. On or about that same date, Plaintiff Joy Furer was assaulted while on the subject
premises which caused her severe and permanent injuries.
7. Venue is proper in this Court because the incidentthat gives rise to this Complaint
occurred in Broward County, Florida.
COUNTI
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC
8 Plaintiffreadoptsand realleges all allegations contained in paragraphs 1-7.
9. At all materialtimes hereto, Defendant, itself and through its agents and employees,
owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees, including Plaintiff, to exercise reasonable and ordinary
care to keep and maintain its premises in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees and the
public. In particular, Defendant had a non-delegable duty to take such precautions as were
reasonably necessary to protect its invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, from reasonably
foreseeable criminal attacks.
10. At all material times hereto, Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their premises and nearby areas were in
a
high crime area, that there had been numerous criminal acts perpetrated on the public in said
areas, and that criminal acts and attacks were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on Defendant's
invitees and the public unless Defendant took steps to provide proper security for such individuals.
11. At all times material hereto, Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that prior to the date of the subject incident
numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, robberies, assaults, shootings, and
other crimes had occurred either on its premises or in areas nearby. Defendant also knew or in
the exercise of reasonable care should have known that prior to the date of the subject incident
numerous other criminal acts including, but not limited to, drug related crimes and/or various
property crimes had occurred either on its premises or in areas nearby.
12. Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or in the exercise ofreasonable
care should have known that no individual, including Plaintiff, had it within their power to take
the measures necessary to provide for their own security on the premises.
13. In light of the foregoing, at all material times the criminal attack of Plaintiff was
reasonably foreseeable, and Defendant was in a superior position to appreciate such hazards and
take necessary steps to prevent harm to its invitees and the public.
14. At the above-referencedtime and place, Defendant, by and through its agents and
employees, breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of its
invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, and acted in a negligent manner through the following
acts of omission or commission:
a. Failing to provide adequate security for its invitees and the public;
b. Failing to warn its invitees and the public ofthe nature and characterof its premises
when it knew or in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known that multiple
criminal incidents had occurred on or nearby to Defendant's premises prior to the
subject incident;
c. Failing to warn, protect, guard, and secure the safety of its invitees and ofthe public;
d. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and otherwise provide adequate protections
for its invitees and the public;
e. Failing to hire and/or retain adequate security personnel to patrol and/or monitor
the premises, thereby protecting its invitees and the public;
f. Failing to have a sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter crime, thereby
protecting its invitees and the public;
g. Failing to have an adequate number o f security guards to protect its invitees and the
public;
h. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its invitees;
i. Failing to properly train security guards to be reasonably skillful, competent, and/or
qualified to exercise appropriate and proper security measures so that they could
protect its tenants, invitees, and the public;
j. Failing to provide proper and sufficient lighting for the premises;
k. Failing to have functional surveillance cameras
throughout the premises;
1. Failing to have an adequate number of surveillance cameras at the premises and the
surrounding areas, including but not limited to the area of the premises where the
subject incident occurred;
m. Failing to position surveillance cameras in appropriate locations such that the
premises and surrounding areas where the subject incident occurred were
monitored and/or said cameras would act as a deterrent against criminal activity;
n. Failing to have and/or maintain surveillance cameras in working condition such
that every camera was able to monitor and record activity in its line of view;
o. Failing to implement adequate security policies, security measures, and security
procedures necessary to protect invitees and the public;
p. Failing to take additional security measures after being put on notice that the
security measures in force were inadequate;
q. Failing to adequatelyprovide an overall security plan that would meet the known
industry standards and customs for safety in the community;
r. Failing to provide a safe area where invitees, including Plaintiff, could access their
vehicle in a well-lit area;
s. Forcing invitees to park their vehicles in a dark area where crime would go
undetected;
t. The preceding paragraphs "A" through "S", individually and/or as a whole,
represent strict deviations from the existing standard of care with regard to security
as recognized by similar businesses and propertiesin the local community; and
u.
Any additional acts of negligence not yet discovered.
15. Defendant, through its agents and employees, negligently failed to have any
procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where the subject
incident occurred; or in the alternative, the Defendant, did in fact have procedures governing the
inspection, supervision, and security of the area where the subject incident occurred, but
implemented said procedures in negligent manner.
16. At all material times, Defendant, through its agents and employees, negligently
failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited for providing, implementing,
and maintaining proper security measures to ensure the safety of its invitees and the public.
17. Defendant, through its agents, servants, and employees, created and/or allowed to
be created said dangerous conditions on the subject premises. Further, the Defendant failed to warn
its invitees and the public, including but not limited to Plaintiff of the existence of said dangerous
conditions; or in the alternative, did allow said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of time
in which a reasonableinspection would have disclosed same.
18. The negligence of the Defendant proximately caused injury to and directly led to her
criminal attack in that:
a. There was inadequate or nonexistent visible deterrence to prevent said criminal
assault;
b. There was inadequate or nonexistent physical deterrence to prevent said criminal
assault;
c. Criminals could carry out physical assaults on Defendant's premises without fear
of being caught, discovered, and prosecuted; and
d. An atmosphere was created at Defendant's premises that facilitatedthe commission
of crimes against persons.
19. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Joy Furer, suffered permanent
losses, including but not limited to, bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering,
disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the
enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment,
aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to
earn money. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff
will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joy Furer, sues Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613
LLC and demands judgment against it for damages, costs of this action and all other further
equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem appropriate, and demands ajury trial on all issues
so triable.
DATED: August 31, 2021.
FLANAGAN & BODENHEIMER INJURY AND
WRONGFUL DEATH LAW FIRM
Attorney for Plaintiff
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 650
Coral Gables, FL 331345
Tel: (305) 637-4143
Fax: (305) 397-2636
/s/ Zachary Bodenheimer
BY
Zachary D. Bodenheimer,Esq., Fla. Bar No.. 91322
Emails:
Preview
Filing # 133722854 E-Filed 08/31/2021 09:13:49 AM 7TH IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA JOY FURER, GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE NO: VS. GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, Defendant. i COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOY FURER, by and through her undersigned attorney, and hereby sues Defendant, GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, and pursuant to all applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure alleges as follows: ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL COUNTS 1. This is an action for damages in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00), exclusive of costs, attorneys' fees, and interests, and is otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. At all times material hereto, Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, authorized to do, and doing business in the State of Florida. Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC (hereinafter "GG") has a registered agent, Lancaster & Reed LLC, which is located at 50 W. Mashta Drive, Suite 6, Key Biscayne, FL 33149. 3 At all times material hereto, Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC owned, operated, managed, maintained, or controlledthe premises located at 2012 N Surf Road, *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 08/31/2021 09:13:46 AM.**** Hollywood, FL 33019. This property is located in Broward County and commonly known as the Neptune Hollywood Beach Hotel (the "subject premises"). 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant GG was responsible and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their agents, employees, representatives, and servants, including but not limited to any employees responsible for safety and security at the subject premises. 5. On January 5, 2021, PlaintiffJoy Furer was a lawful business invitee at the subject premises. 6. On or about that same date, Plaintiff Joy Furer was assaulted while on the subject premises which caused her severe and permanent injuries. 7. Venue is proper in this Court because the incidentthat gives rise to this Complaint occurred in Broward County, Florida. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE AGAINST GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC 8 Plaintiffreadoptsand realleges all allegations contained in paragraphs 1-7. 9. At all materialtimes hereto, Defendant, itself and through its agents and employees, owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees, including Plaintiff, to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to keep and maintain its premises in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees and the public. In particular, Defendant had a non-delegable duty to take such precautions as were reasonably necessary to protect its invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks. 10. At all material times hereto, Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their premises and nearby areas were in a high crime area, that there had been numerous criminal acts perpetrated on the public in said areas, and that criminal acts and attacks were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on Defendant's invitees and the public unless Defendant took steps to provide proper security for such individuals. 11. At all times material hereto, Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that prior to the date of the subject incident numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, robberies, assaults, shootings, and other crimes had occurred either on its premises or in areas nearby. Defendant also knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that prior to the date of the subject incident numerous other criminal acts including, but not limited to, drug related crimes and/or various property crimes had occurred either on its premises or in areas nearby. 12. Defendant, through its agents and employees, knew or in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known that no individual, including Plaintiff, had it within their power to take the measures necessary to provide for their own security on the premises. 13. In light of the foregoing, at all material times the criminal attack of Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable, and Defendant was in a superior position to appreciate such hazards and take necessary steps to prevent harm to its invitees and the public. 14. At the above-referencedtime and place, Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of its invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, and acted in a negligent manner through the following acts of omission or commission: a. Failing to provide adequate security for its invitees and the public; b. Failing to warn its invitees and the public ofthe nature and characterof its premises when it knew or in the exercise ofreasonable care should have known that multiple criminal incidents had occurred on or nearby to Defendant's premises prior to the subject incident; c. Failing to warn, protect, guard, and secure the safety of its invitees and ofthe public; d. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and otherwise provide adequate protections for its invitees and the public; e. Failing to hire and/or retain adequate security personnel to patrol and/or monitor the premises, thereby protecting its invitees and the public; f. Failing to have a sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter crime, thereby protecting its invitees and the public; g. Failing to have an adequate number o f security guards to protect its invitees and the public; h. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its invitees; i. Failing to properly train security guards to be reasonably skillful, competent, and/or qualified to exercise appropriate and proper security measures so that they could protect its tenants, invitees, and the public; j. Failing to provide proper and sufficient lighting for the premises; k. Failing to have functional surveillance cameras throughout the premises; 1. Failing to have an adequate number of surveillance cameras at the premises and the surrounding areas, including but not limited to the area of the premises where the subject incident occurred; m. Failing to position surveillance cameras in appropriate locations such that the premises and surrounding areas where the subject incident occurred were monitored and/or said cameras would act as a deterrent against criminal activity; n. Failing to have and/or maintain surveillance cameras in working condition such that every camera was able to monitor and record activity in its line of view; o. Failing to implement adequate security policies, security measures, and security procedures necessary to protect invitees and the public; p. Failing to take additional security measures after being put on notice that the security measures in force were inadequate; q. Failing to adequatelyprovide an overall security plan that would meet the known industry standards and customs for safety in the community; r. Failing to provide a safe area where invitees, including Plaintiff, could access their vehicle in a well-lit area; s. Forcing invitees to park their vehicles in a dark area where crime would go undetected; t. The preceding paragraphs "A" through "S", individually and/or as a whole, represent strict deviations from the existing standard of care with regard to security as recognized by similar businesses and propertiesin the local community; and u. Any additional acts of negligence not yet discovered. 15. Defendant, through its agents and employees, negligently failed to have any procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where the subject incident occurred; or in the alternative, the Defendant, did in fact have procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and security of the area where the subject incident occurred, but implemented said procedures in negligent manner. 16. At all material times, Defendant, through its agents and employees, negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited for providing, implementing, and maintaining proper security measures to ensure the safety of its invitees and the public. 17. Defendant, through its agents, servants, and employees, created and/or allowed to be created said dangerous conditions on the subject premises. Further, the Defendant failed to warn its invitees and the public, including but not limited to Plaintiff of the existence of said dangerous conditions; or in the alternative, did allow said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of time in which a reasonableinspection would have disclosed same. 18. The negligence of the Defendant proximately caused injury to and directly led to her criminal attack in that: a. There was inadequate or nonexistent visible deterrence to prevent said criminal assault; b. There was inadequate or nonexistent physical deterrence to prevent said criminal assault; c. Criminals could carry out physical assaults on Defendant's premises without fear of being caught, discovered, and prosecuted; and d. An atmosphere was created at Defendant's premises that facilitatedthe commission of crimes against persons. 19. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Joy Furer, suffered permanent losses, including but not limited to, bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joy Furer, sues Defendant GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC and demands judgment against it for damages, costs of this action and all other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem appropriate, and demands ajury trial on all issues so triable. DATED: August 31, 2021. FLANAGAN & BODENHEIMER INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 650 Coral Gables, FL 331345 Tel: (305) 637-4143 Fax: (305) 397-2636 /s/ Zachary Bodenheimer BY Zachary D. Bodenheimer,Esq., Fla. Bar No.. 91322 Emails: