Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___ ____________ --------X
EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER
and CARLO-EDOARDO CARLON, Index No.:
Plaintiffs, SUMMONS
-against- Plaintiff designates New
York County as the Place of
DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP., and THE CITY Trial
OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
______________ __________________________..-----------------X
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
Plaintiffs'
a copy of your answer on the attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you
personally within the state, or within thirty (30) days after completion of service where service is
made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken
against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: December 2, 2021
Queens, New York Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.
By:
Ashley M. M uro, Esq.
Attorneys f r laintiffs
9di
118-35 Queens Blvd, Floor
Forest Hills, New York 11375
718-261-7700
TO: Douglas-Worghs Realty Corp.
120 Co-op City Blvd, #13G
Bronx, New York 10475
The City of New York
C/O Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
1 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---- ¬-- ------------------------- X
EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER
and CARLO-EDOARDO CARLON, Index No.:
Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP., and THE CITY
OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
--------------------------- X
EDWARD MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO-
Plaintiffs, SCHUMACHER,
EDOARDO CARLON, by their attorneys Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., as for their verified
complaint allege as and upon information and belief the following:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs, EDWARD SCHUMACHER and MARIBEL SCHUMACHER, are the record
119*
owners of the property known as and located at 70 West Street, New York, New
York 10026 ("Schumacher Property"),
2. Plaintiff, CARLO-EDOARDQ CARLON, is a record owner of the property known as
119th
and located at 64 West Street, New York, New York 10026 ("Carlon Property").
3. The Defendant, DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP. ("Douglas-Worghs"), is upon
information and belief, a domestic business corporation, and the record owner of the
119*
property known as and located at 66 and 68 West Street, New York, New York
("Subject Premises").
4. The Defendant, The City of New York, a municipal entity, requires that property owners
maintain their properties in compliance with, inter alia, the New York City
Administrative Code.
2 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
THE FACTS
Plaintiffs'
5. The Subject Premises is located in between the respective properties.
Plaintiffs'
6. The Subject Premises shares a party wall with the respective properties.
7. Douglas-Worghs has failed to maintain the Subject Premises in a safe condition in
accordance with the New York City Administrative Code, inter alia, Section 28.301.1.
8. Section 28.301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code provides:
All buildings and all parts thereof and all other structures shall be
maintained in a safe condition. All service equipment, means of
egress, materials, devices, and safeguards that are required in a
building by the provisions of this code, the 1968 building code or
other applicable laws or rules, or that were required by law when
the building was erected, altered, or repaired, shall be maintained
in good working condition. Whenever persons engaged in building
operations have reason to believe in the course of such operations
that any building or other structure is dangerous or unsafe, such
person shall forthwith report such belief in writing to the department.
The owner shall be responsible at all times to maintain the building
and its facilities and all other structures regulated by this code in a
safe and code-compliant manner and shall comply with the inspection
and maintenance requirements of this chapter.
9. The Plaintiffs have sustained damage to their respective properties as a direct result of
Douglas-Worghs'
failure to maintain the Subject Premises in accordance with the New
York City Administrative Code.
10. Specifically, water that has pooled in the Subject Premises has been seeping into the
Plaintiffs'
respective basements causing water and ancillary damage to their respective
properties.
11. In or about September 2021, the Plaintiffs hired Blue Sky Design, Inc. ("Blue Sky"),
consultmg engmeers, to provide a structural assessment of the Subject Premises.
3 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
12. Blue Sky surveyed the Subject Premises on September 30, 2021 and November 1, 2021
and determined that the condition and lack of upkeep and maiñtêñance of the Subject
Plaintiffs'
Premises has damaged, and continues to damage, respective properties.
13. The roof of the Subject Premises is uneven and has multiple holes.
14. The existing skylights and roof hatches of the Subject Premises are damaged with no
enclosure from the elements.
15. The roof of the Subject Premises is not properly waterproofed which has contributed to
water pooling in the Subject Premises.
16. The parapet at the party wall of the Subject Premises has coping removed in large areas
with severely deteriorated mortar and brick at the wall below.
17. The existing masonry chimneys at the party wall of the Subject Premises are severely
deteriorated with several loose bricks.
18. The front façade of the Subject Premises has been partially boarded up and has broken
windows.
19. The front façade of the Subject Premises has areas with significant wearing and
delamination of the stonework.
20. The rear fagade of the Subject Premises has overgrown vines in addition to windows that
are damaged, missing and/or open with direct exposure to the clemeñts.
21. The stone rubble masonry party wall at the Schumacher Property has several areas along
the base where the masonry has deteriorated through the wall.
22. The stone rubble masonry party wall at the Carlon Property has several areas along the
base where the masonry has deteriorated through the wall.
4 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
23. A compatible fill needs to be injected throughout the foundation of the party walls to fill
all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation.
24. The party wall at the Subject Premises has significant areas of joist and sheathing failure.
25. There are areas of joist and sheathing failure along the parapet at the Carlon Property and
the Subject Premises.
26. As a result of Douglas-Worghs failure to maintain the Subject Premises, the Subject
Premises is exposed to the elements which has led to large amounts of water pooling in
Plaintiffs'
the Subject Premises and seeping into the respective properties through and
under the shared party walls.
Plaintiffs'
27. Specifically, water is seeping into the respective basements from the Subject
Plaintiffs'
Premises causing severe damage to the respective properties.
Plaintiffs'
28. In addition to the water damage to respective properties, the water seeping into
Plaintiffs'
the respective basements poses health concerns for the Plaintiffs, and the
public, as they can be exposed to mold and other environmental toxins.
29. Danger exists regarding the stability of the party wall at the Subject Premises and
potential falling debris as a result of holes in the roof and loose bricks.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDAN_TS
30. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraplis 1
through 29 as if fully set forth herein.
31. Section 28.301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code requires that the Subject
Premises be maintained in safe condition.
32. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly maintain the Subject Premises in safe condition
pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code.
5 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
33. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and failed to
prevent the seemingly abandoned Subject Premises from into disrepair.
falling
34. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The
City of New York, to seal all open windows, and the roof, at the Subject Premises and
waterproof all exterior surfaces of the Subject Premises.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
35. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1
through 34 as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiffs'
36. The party walls shared between the Subject Premises and the respective
properties have not been properly maintained or waterproofed by Douglas-Worghs.
37. Douglas-Worghs has also failed to pump water out of the Subject Premises.
38. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and prevent the
Subject Premises from falling into disrepair.
Douglas-Worghs'
39. The failure of and the City of New York to maintain the Subject
Plaintiffs'
Premises has led to frequent and reoccurring flooding of the. respective
basements.
40. Allowing water to accumulate in the basement of Subject Premises and the failure to
provide adequate waterproofing in the basement of the Subject Premises directly leads to
Plaintiffs'
flooding and damage to the respective basements.
41. As such, Defendants have unreasonably, substantially,. and intentionally damaged
Plaintiffs'
respective properties.
42. The actions of Defendants render them liable to Plaintiffs for damages in an amount to be
determined by the Court but reasonably believed to be in excess of $350,000.00.
6 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
43. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1
through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
44. The front façade of the Subject Premises has areas with significant wearing and
delamination of the stonework.
Douglas-Worghs'
45. has failed to maintain repair or replace the stonework at the front
façade of the Subject Premises.
46. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises.
47. The deteriorated stonework at the front façade of the Subject Premises is a danger to
public safety and must be patched and replaced as required to prevent further
deterioration and falling debris.
48. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to patch or replace the front façade of
the Subject Premises.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
49. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1
through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
50. The party wall of the Subject Premises has significant areas of joist and failure.
sheathing
51. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly maintain the party wall of the Subject Premises.
52. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly repair the party wall of the Subject Premises.
53. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and as a result
the stability of the party wall has become compromised.
7 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
Defendants'
54. As a result of the actions, the stability of the party wall of the Subject Premises
has been compromised.
55. The party wall poses a danger to public safety, including the safety of the Plaintiffs.
56. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to repair, replace or have temporary
shoring installed for the lateral stability of the party wall of the Subject Premises.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
57. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1
through 56 as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiffs'
58. The respective party walls have developed cracks and holes over time as a
result of large amounts of water standing against the stone rubble foundation walls.
59. The Defendants have failed to repair the cracks and holes in the shared party walls.
60. Additionally, Defendants have failed to properly waterproof the party walls.
61. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and as such the
Plaintiff's respective party walls have developed cracks and holes which have led to
Plaintiffs'
flooding of the respective basements.
62. As such, a compatible fill needs to be injected throughout the foundation party walls to
fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation party walls.
63. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to inject a compatible fill throughout the
foundation party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation
8 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
64. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1
through 63 as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants'
65. The have failed to maintain the Subject Premises in a safe manner.
Defendants'
66. As a result, the have unreasonably, substantially and intentionally damaged
Plaintiffs'
the respective properties.
Defendants'
67. Additionally, have unreasonably, substantially and intentionally caused
serious public safety concerns.
68. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of legal fees, in an amount
to be determined by the court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $7,500.00,
together with interest, costs and disbursements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows.
a. On the First Cause of Action agamst Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to seal all open windows, and the roof, at
the Subject Premises and waterproof all exterior surfaces of the Subject Premises,
b. On the Second Cause of Action against Defendants, a judgment, in an amount to be
determined by the Court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $350,000.00;
c. On the Third Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to patch or replace the front façade of
the Subject Premises
d. On the Fourth Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to repair, replace or have temporary
shoring installed for the lateral stability of the party wall at the Subject Premises;
9 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
e. On the Fifth Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring
Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to inject a compatible fill throughout the
foundation party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation; and
f. On the Sixth Cause of Actions against Defendants, an award of legal fees, in amount to be
determined by the court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $7,500.00, together
with interest, costs and disbursements.
Dated: December 2, 2021
Queens, New York
Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.
By:
Ashley M. au , Esq.
Attorneys for P1 intiffs
118-35 Quee 96 Floor
lvd,
Forest Hills e York 11375
718-261-7
10 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
VERIFICATION
That the undersigned is an Associate with Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.; that I have
read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my knowledge
except for those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters,
I believe them to be true. The basis for my belief is conversations with the Plaintiffs and review of
its documents. This verification is made by me and not by the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs do
not have an office in Queens County where its attorney's offices are located.
Ashley 1. auro
Dated: December 2, 2021
Queens, New York
11 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021
HERTZ, CHERSON, & ROSENTHAL, P.C.
INDEX No.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO-EDOARDO
Related Content
in New York County
Case
337 E 77 Lp v. Lynn Jawitz
Jul 07, 2024 |
Real Property - Other (Breach of Contract) |
Real Property - Other (Breach of Contract) |
156170/2024
Case
Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd., New York Branch, The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank, Ltd. v. New Tent, Llc, Neo Image Enterprises, Llc, A&H Installation Inc., Milestone Construction Corp., Colgate Rentals Corp., United States Small Business Administration, M & D Installers, Inc. d/b/a M&D Door and Hardware, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Department Of Finance, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, John Doe No. 1 To John Doe No. 100
Jul 10, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
850240/2024
Case
175 West 76th Street Llc, v. Lichter Real Estate Number One, L.L.C., Suzette Schwartz, Suzette Schwartz As Executor Of The Estate Of Claire Lichter, Joseph Schwartz As Executor Of The Estate Of Claire Lichter, City Of New York Environmental Control Board, New York City Department Of Finance, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, New York Smsa Limited Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, John Doe #1 Through John Doe # 100 the last one hundred names being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest upon the premises described in the Complaint
Jul 09, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
850233/2024
Case
Flushing Bank v. Manhattan 140 Llc, Joseph Makhani, Department Of Housing Preservation And Development, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, New York City Department Of Finance, John Doe No.1 Through John Doe No.10, The Last Ten (10) Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To The Plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises described in the Verified Complaint,
Jul 09, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
850234/2024
Case
West 30th Hl Llc v. Walter Cosby
Mar 15, 2021 |
Real Property - Other (BREACH OF CON/INJUNCTIVE) |
Real Property - Other (BREACH OF CON/INJUNCTIVE) |
152605/2021
Ruling
JGR MAR VISTA, LLC VS OUIZMAN, LLC, ET AL.
Jul 15, 2024 |
23SMCV04355
Case Number:
23SMCV04355
Hearing Date:
July 15, 2024
Dept:
205
HEARING DATE:
July
15
, 2024
JUDGE/DEPT:
Moreton
/
Beverly Hills, 205
CASE NAME:
JGR Mar Vista v.
Tropez
Marcel
Aubour
, et al.
CASE NUMBER:
2
3
SMCV0
4355
COMP. FILED:
September 18
, 2023
PROCEEDINGS:
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOVING
PARTY:
JGR Mar Vista
RESP
ONDING
PARTY:
Tropez Marcel Aubour dba Atmosphere Café
and
Ouizman
LLC
BACKGROUND
This
case
a
rises from a breach of a contract for commercial space
located
at 12034 Venice Blvd, Los Angeles, California (the Premises)
.
Plaintiff JGR Mar Vistas predecessor in interest entered into a written
commercial lease agreement
(Lease)
with Defendants Aubour Tropez Marcel and
Ouizman
, LLC
.
Plaintiff
acquired
the Premises
and
was assigned all rights and interest in the Lease under an Assignment and Assumption of Lease
.
Defendants
failed to
pay rent
.
Plaintiff caused Defendants to be served with a 3 Day Notice to Pay or Quit
.
Defendants
failed to
comply with
the Notice
,
and
Plaintiff filed
an unlawful detainer action
.
That action resulted in a judgment for possession only
.
After regaining possession, Plaintiff was able to re-
lease
the Premises to a new tenant
.
However, the
new tenants rent is less than Defendants rent
.
There is a shortfall of $1,533.02 per month
.
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging a single claim for breach of
Lease
.
The Complaint seeks
$149,817.00 in damages, interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and costs of suit
.
Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing
Ouizman
was served by
substitute service
on
September 26, 2023, and Tropez was served by publication on April 12, 2024
.
Defendants were
obligated
to respond
.
They
did not do so
.
Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of
Defendants
default, which was entered by the Clerks Office on
June 12,
2024
and June 13, 2024
.
Plaintiff
requested a default judgment on
July 1, 2024
.
Plaintiff served
Defendants
by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment
.
Defendants have
not appeared.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Default judgment against
Defendants
for a total of
$
130,853.96
, which is
comprised
of: (1) $
130,
044.55
, for damages,
and
(2) $
809.41
, for costs.
ANALYSIS
Code Civ
.
Proc
.
§
585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff
s complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of
damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting,
additional
evidence, or the exercise of judgment to
ascertain
, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively
establish
his entitlement to the specific judgment
requested
.¿ (
Kim v.
Westmoore
Partners, Inc.
(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)
Section 585 also allows for interest
,
costs
and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code Civ. Proc.
§
585(a).)
Multiple specific documents are required, such as
: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under C
ode
C
iv.
P
roc.
§ 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)
Here, Plaintiff has properly
complied with
all the substantive and procedural requirements for a default judgment
.
Substantively, Plaintiff declares via declaration that there have been damages
in the amount of
$
1
30,853.96
, which includes
(1)
back rent due of $111,648.31
and
(2) the
difference in
Defendants
rent
and the new tenants rent of $18,396.24
.
A memorandum of
costs
in the amount of
$
80
9.41
is
set forth in
Item
7
of the CIV-10
0
form
.
The evidence (including the
accounting
statement) is authenticated by declaration
.
Procedurally, Plaintiff properly served Defendant
s
more than 30 days prior to requesting entry of default and default judgment, correctly completed JC Form CIV-10
0
in a manner that would not void or put at issue the entry of default,
provided a declaration of non-military status,
requested dismissal of the fictitious defendants,
requested damages in amounts supported by
the filings
and not in excess of the amount stated in the Complaint
,
and filed a proposed judgment (JUD-100).
As default has already been entered and there has been no appearance or filing whatsoever from Defendant
s
,
default judgment is
appropriate here
.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff
JGR Mar Vistas
Request for Default Judgment is
GRANTED
as to Defendant
s
Tropez Marcel Aubour dba Atmosphere Café
and
Ouizman
LLC
.
Default judgment
in the amount of
$
130,853.96
is awarded in favor of Plaintiff.
Ruling
GOOD POST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY VS. BARCELINO CONTINENTAL CORP., A CALIFORNIA ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CUD23671595
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 12, 2024 line 6. DEFENDANT BARCELINO CONTINENTAL CORP . is OFF CALENDAR. Dismissal on file. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
GEOFFREY LYNCH VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC24613682
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 9, 2024 line 1. DEFENDANT JUSTIN LUU, XIAO WU DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to allege facts in support of each element of each cause of action as to the moving defendants. Plaintiff must also allege tender or facts supporting an exception from the tender rule. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
TIFFANY FABER (GUARDIAN AD LITEM), ET AL. VS 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
23NWCV02916
Case Number:
23NWCV02916
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
C
FABER v. 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP
CASE NO.:
23NWCV02916
HEARING:
07/11/24
#5
I.
Defendants 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC.s Demurrer to Plaintiffs; Complaint is
OVERRULED
.
II.
Defendants 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC.s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs; Complaint is
DENIED
.
Opposing Party to give notice.
This action was filed by Plaintiffs TIFFANY FABER; KAREEM KELLY; SARAI HILL; SHILOH HARRIS; and ELIJAHALI KELLY (collectively Plaintiffs) on September 14, 2023 concerning their tenancy at the Subject Property. (Complaint ¶13.)
Plaintiffs allege that [t]hroughout Plaintiffs tenancies, the Subject Property lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation& and would be considered a substandard unit as described in Heath & Safety Code §17920.3. (Complaint ¶14.)
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:
(1)
Breach of Covenant/Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment/Warranty of Habitability;
(2)
Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability;
(3)
Negligence;
(4)
Violation of Unfair Business Practices; and
(5)
IIED
Defendants 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC. (collectively Defendants) generally demur to the fifth cause of action for IIED.
Demurrer
The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional suffering and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress. (
Wong v. Jing
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1376.) The conduct alleged must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. (
Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co
. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403, 416.)
Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants& about& slum-housing and untenable conditions including: inadequate plumbing; inadequate ventilation; dampness and mold; health and safety code violations; unsanitary conditions; and the failure to maintain the premises in a good and safe condition. (Complaint ¶15.) Plaintiffs further allege that [d]ue to the untenable conditions at the Subject Property which Defendants have allowed to persist unabated, Plaintiffs have developed serious health issues&. Plaintiffs have all suffered from, and continue to suffer from severe emotional distress. (Id. ¶21.)
The Complaint alleges that Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, and have caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress. These allegations are sufficient to support claims for IIED at this stage in the litigation. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages.
A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (CCP §436.)
Punitive damages must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendants conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. (
Smith v. Sup. Ct
. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42.) For corporations, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (Cal. Civ. Code §3294(b).)
In a personal injury action the notion of conscious disregard of the safety of others logically may be substituted for that of disregard of the rights of others& [C]onscious disregard of safety as an appropriate description of the animus malus which may justify an exemplary damage award when nondeliberate injury is alleged. (
G.D. Searle & Co. v. Sup. Ct
. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)
Here, Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendants were aware of but failed to cure severe mold infestations and plumbing leaks for years, which caused physical harm to Plaintiffs. (See Complaint ¶¶17-22.) The motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED. The Complaint pleads sufficient facts to support a recovery of punitive damages at this stage in a litigation.
Ruling
William Shaw vs Ruth Shaw
Jul 11, 2024 |
23CV02548
23CV02548
SHAW v. SHAW
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT PARTITION REFEREE
The unopposed motion is granted. Mr. Singer will be appointed as the partition referee.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Case No. 19CV02702
RHOADS v. BECKLEY
APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING/OSC FOR SALE OF
DWELLING
This application is continued as discussed below.
The original application, brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.740
through 704.850, was filed on January 26, 2023. For a variety of reasons, the application was
continued and not ruled upon. When the application was filed, Mr. Beckley was without counsel
and the court noted procedural as well as notice issues with the application, resulting in
continuances. Mr. Beckley then retained counsel, Thornton Davidson, on June 29, 2023.
Mr. Davidson sought to be relieved as counsel on May 8, 2024. The declaration in
support of Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved noted the next court date as June 11, 2024. The
court issued a tentative ruling the day before the June 11 hearing, tentatively granting the motion
to be relieved and specifically continuing the application for sale of dwelling to allow defendant
to either retain new counsel or participate in a pro per capacity. The parties were ordered to
appear. At the June 11 hearing, attended by Mr. Davidson and plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Eschen,
Page 1 of 2
the court granted Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved and set July 11, 2024 as the next hearing
date. Mr. Beckley did not attend the June 11, 2024 hearing, nor is there evidence before the court
that he was notified of the July 11, 2024 date. The order prepared by Mr. Davidson after the
hearing and served on Mr. Beckley stated that the tentative ruling became the order of the court.
While the order attached the tentative ruling, there is no mention in either the order or the
tentative ruling of the July 11, 2024 hearing date for the application. The tentative ruling
specified that the application hearing would be set at the next court date.
The court will issue an order to show cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
704.770, subdivision (a). “After the judgment creditor has filed an application for an order for
sale, the court sets a time and place for hearing and must order the judgment debtor to show
cause why an order for sale should not be made in accordance with the application. The hearing
must be set no later than 45 days after the application is filed, or such later time as the court
orders on a showing of good cause.” (2 MB Practice Guide: CA Debt Collection 17.36 (2024).)
After the OSC is set, Mr. Rhoads must serve on the judgment debtor, Mr. Beckley, a copy of the
OSC, a copy of the application, and a copy of the notice of hearing in the form required by the
Judicial Council. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 704.770, subd. (b).)
Page 2 of 2
Ruling
MOHILL HOLDINGS, LP, A CALIFORNIA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS LA-FIG PARKING LOT LESSEE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,, ET AL.
Jul 10, 2024 |
23STCV28088
Case Number:
23STCV28088
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
39
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
39
May 20
July 10, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
23STCV28088
MOTION
:
Motion for Attorneys Fees
MOVING PARTY:
Defendant LA-Fig Parking Lot Lessee, LLC
OPPOSING PARTIES:
Plaintiffs Mohill Holdings, LP and MO Foundation Holdings, LLC
MOTIONS
Plaintiffs Mohill Holdings, LP and MO Foundation Holdings, LLC (Plaintiffs) dismissed their claims against Defendant LA-Fig Parking Lot Lessee, LLC (Defendant).
Now, Defendant seeks attorney fees
.
Plaintiff opposes the motion.
ANALYSIS
The parties disagree as to whether this case is a contract or tort action.
In a contract action, [w]here an action has been voluntarily dismissed . . . , there shall be no prevailing party . . . .
(Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b)(2).)
Plaintiffs complaint in this action is for unlawful detainer.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint on February 21, 2024.
As such, Plaintiffs argue Defendant is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to attorney fees.
However, Plaintiffs claims do not constitute an action on the contract.
[T]he unlawful detainer statute encompasses breach of lease (arguably contract-type matters) and holdover possession after expiration of the lease (arguably a noncontract issue).
(
Drybread v. Chipain Chiropractic Corp
. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1074.)
In the instant case, Plaintiffs claims are based on Defendants holdover possession and are, therefore, noncontractual.
Plaintiffs claim Defendant failed to surrender the premises after Plaintiffs served Defendant with a notice to quit.
The 30-day notice to quit attached to the complaint does not identify any breach of the lease, rather it informs Defendant the month-to-month tenancy is terminated, and Defendant is required to quit and surrender possession of the premises.
(See Complaint, filed November 13, 2023, Exhibit 2.)
As such, Plaintiffs claims did not sound in contract.
Thus, the prohibition on an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1777 for the voluntary dismissal of the complaint does not apply.
The court determines Defendant is a prevailing party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4).
(
Drybread v. Chipain Chiropractic Corp.
(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1077.)
The prevailing party must seek an award of attorney fees through the filing of a noticed motion and bears the burden of proof to justify the amount sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5)(A).)
Defendant seeks an award of $50,000 in attorney fees.
Defendant has not, however, advanced any billing records to support this amount. The court considers a request for attorney fees based on careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved.
(
Serrano v. Unruh
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 626, fn. 6, internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Without such evidence, the court cannot grant Defendants request for attorney fees.
Defendant cites
Steiny & Co., Inc. v. California Electric Supply Co
. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, which is not on point.
In that case, the Court of Appeal stated, An attorney's testimony as to the number of hours worked is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.
(
Steiny & Co., Inc. v. California Electric Supply Co
. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.)
The court also noted the attorneys declaration in that case included detailed evidence of hours spent, tasks concluded, and billing rates.
(
Ibid.
)
In the instant case, Defendant does not present any evidence of the number of hours Defendants attorneys billed on the matter, the specific nature of the services they provided, or the specific tasks that were completed.
Defendant advances a declaration of its attorney, Navi Signh Dhillon (Dhillon) who simply states, I reviewed the billing records for this matter and I am confident that the number of hours billed are commensurate with the tasks performed.
(Declaration of Navi Singh Dhillon, ¶ 7.)
Dhillon does not aver to the number of hours he and/or any other attorney worked on this case nor the specific tasks that were performed.
Although Dhillon suggests he has discounted the number of hours worked by as much as a half of the hours expended in the case and is, therefore, seeking only $50,000 for 50 hours of work at $1,000 an hour, that is not a sufficient accounting.
Moreover, he has not established a billing rate of $1000 an hour in an unlawful detainer action is a reasonable hourly rate that is in keeping with the industry standard in Los Angeles.
Defendant fails to present evidence to support the requested fees.
Accordingly, the motion for attorney fees is denied without prejudice.
Defendant is
ordered to provide notice of this order and to file proof of service of same.
Ruling
WAGNER VS. LLOYD
Jul 14, 2024 |
CVCV21-0198602
WAGNER VS. LLOYD
Case Number: CVCV21-0198602
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of counsel. At the last hearing on May 20, 2024, both
parties represented that they were trying to obtain counsel. There was also a question of whether Plaintiff was
acting in her capacity as a Trustee. An appearance by both parties is required on today’s calendar. Plaintiff
should be prepared to address whether the property is held by a trust or as individuals.
Ruling
Jensen vs. Wells Fargo Realty Services Inc
Jul 10, 2024 |
22CV-0200623
JENSEN VS. WELLS FARGO REALTY SERVICES INC
Case Number: 22CV-0200623
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. Defendant has been defaulted
in this case. A default prove-up hearing has not occurred. At the prior hearing on April 8, 2024,
Plaintiff’s Counsel appeared to inform the Court she was speaking with a bond company and to
request a continuance. The matter was continued to today but no status report has been filed. An
appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss the status of the case and, if
appropriate, to re-set this mater for a default prove-up hearing.
Document
Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd., New York Branch, The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank, Ltd. v. New Tent, Llc, Neo Image Enterprises, Llc, A&H Installation Inc., Milestone Construction Corp., Colgate Rentals Corp., United States Small Business Administration, M & D Installers, Inc. d/b/a M&D Door and Hardware, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Department Of Finance, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, John Doe No. 1 To John Doe No. 100
Jul 10, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
850240/2024
Document
175 West 76th Street Llc, v. Lichter Real Estate Number One, L.L.C., Suzette Schwartz, Suzette Schwartz As Executor Of The Estate Of Claire Lichter, Joseph Schwartz As Executor Of The Estate Of Claire Lichter, City Of New York Environmental Control Board, New York City Department Of Finance, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, New York Smsa Limited Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, John Doe #1 Through John Doe # 100 the last one hundred names being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest upon the premises described in the Complaint
Jul 09, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |
850233/2024
Document
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Owner Trustee For Vrmtg Asset Trust v. Lindsay Frimodt , if living and if any be dead, any and all the heirs at law, next of kin, distributees, devisees, grantees, trustees, lienors, creditors, assignees, and successors in interest of any of the aforesaid defendants, next of kin, distributees, devisees, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, United States Of America O/B/O Internal Revenue Service, Board Of Managers Of 72 A/K/A 72-74 East 3rd Street Condominium
May 28, 2019 |
Francis A. Kahn III
|
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
850114/2019
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ___ ____________ --------X EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO-EDOARDO CARLON, Index No.: Plaintiffs, SUMMONS -against- Plaintiff designates New York County as the Place of DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP., and THE CITY Trial OF NEW YORK, Defendants. ______________ __________________________..-----------------X TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve Plaintiffs' a copy of your answer on the attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or within thirty (30) days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: December 2, 2021 Queens, New York Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. By: Ashley M. M uro, Esq. Attorneys f r laintiffs 9di 118-35 Queens Blvd, Floor Forest Hills, New York 11375 718-261-7700 TO: Douglas-Worghs Realty Corp. 120 Co-op City Blvd, #13G Bronx, New York 10475 The City of New York C/O Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 1 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---- ¬-- ------------------------- X EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO-EDOARDO CARLON, Index No.: Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP., and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. --------------------------- X EDWARD MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO- Plaintiffs, SCHUMACHER, EDOARDO CARLON, by their attorneys Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., as for their verified complaint allege as and upon information and belief the following: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, EDWARD SCHUMACHER and MARIBEL SCHUMACHER, are the record 119* owners of the property known as and located at 70 West Street, New York, New York 10026 ("Schumacher Property"), 2. Plaintiff, CARLO-EDOARDQ CARLON, is a record owner of the property known as 119th and located at 64 West Street, New York, New York 10026 ("Carlon Property"). 3. The Defendant, DOUGLAS-WORGHS REALTY CORP. ("Douglas-Worghs"), is upon information and belief, a domestic business corporation, and the record owner of the 119* property known as and located at 66 and 68 West Street, New York, New York ("Subject Premises"). 4. The Defendant, The City of New York, a municipal entity, requires that property owners maintain their properties in compliance with, inter alia, the New York City Administrative Code. 2 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 THE FACTS Plaintiffs' 5. The Subject Premises is located in between the respective properties. Plaintiffs' 6. The Subject Premises shares a party wall with the respective properties. 7. Douglas-Worghs has failed to maintain the Subject Premises in a safe condition in accordance with the New York City Administrative Code, inter alia, Section 28.301.1. 8. Section 28.301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code provides: All buildings and all parts thereof and all other structures shall be maintained in a safe condition. All service equipment, means of egress, materials, devices, and safeguards that are required in a building by the provisions of this code, the 1968 building code or other applicable laws or rules, or that were required by law when the building was erected, altered, or repaired, shall be maintained in good working condition. Whenever persons engaged in building operations have reason to believe in the course of such operations that any building or other structure is dangerous or unsafe, such person shall forthwith report such belief in writing to the department. The owner shall be responsible at all times to maintain the building and its facilities and all other structures regulated by this code in a safe and code-compliant manner and shall comply with the inspection and maintenance requirements of this chapter. 9. The Plaintiffs have sustained damage to their respective properties as a direct result of Douglas-Worghs' failure to maintain the Subject Premises in accordance with the New York City Administrative Code. 10. Specifically, water that has pooled in the Subject Premises has been seeping into the Plaintiffs' respective basements causing water and ancillary damage to their respective properties. 11. In or about September 2021, the Plaintiffs hired Blue Sky Design, Inc. ("Blue Sky"), consultmg engmeers, to provide a structural assessment of the Subject Premises. 3 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 12. Blue Sky surveyed the Subject Premises on September 30, 2021 and November 1, 2021 and determined that the condition and lack of upkeep and maiñtêñance of the Subject Plaintiffs' Premises has damaged, and continues to damage, respective properties. 13. The roof of the Subject Premises is uneven and has multiple holes. 14. The existing skylights and roof hatches of the Subject Premises are damaged with no enclosure from the elements. 15. The roof of the Subject Premises is not properly waterproofed which has contributed to water pooling in the Subject Premises. 16. The parapet at the party wall of the Subject Premises has coping removed in large areas with severely deteriorated mortar and brick at the wall below. 17. The existing masonry chimneys at the party wall of the Subject Premises are severely deteriorated with several loose bricks. 18. The front façade of the Subject Premises has been partially boarded up and has broken windows. 19. The front façade of the Subject Premises has areas with significant wearing and delamination of the stonework. 20. The rear fagade of the Subject Premises has overgrown vines in addition to windows that are damaged, missing and/or open with direct exposure to the clemeñts. 21. The stone rubble masonry party wall at the Schumacher Property has several areas along the base where the masonry has deteriorated through the wall. 22. The stone rubble masonry party wall at the Carlon Property has several areas along the base where the masonry has deteriorated through the wall. 4 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 23. A compatible fill needs to be injected throughout the foundation of the party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation. 24. The party wall at the Subject Premises has significant areas of joist and sheathing failure. 25. There are areas of joist and sheathing failure along the parapet at the Carlon Property and the Subject Premises. 26. As a result of Douglas-Worghs failure to maintain the Subject Premises, the Subject Premises is exposed to the elements which has led to large amounts of water pooling in Plaintiffs' the Subject Premises and seeping into the respective properties through and under the shared party walls. Plaintiffs' 27. Specifically, water is seeping into the respective basements from the Subject Plaintiffs' Premises causing severe damage to the respective properties. Plaintiffs' 28. In addition to the water damage to respective properties, the water seeping into Plaintiffs' the respective basements poses health concerns for the Plaintiffs, and the public, as they can be exposed to mold and other environmental toxins. 29. Danger exists regarding the stability of the party wall at the Subject Premises and potential falling debris as a result of holes in the roof and loose bricks. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDAN_TS 30. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraplis 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein. 31. Section 28.301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code requires that the Subject Premises be maintained in safe condition. 32. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly maintain the Subject Premises in safe condition pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code. 5 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 33. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and failed to prevent the seemingly abandoned Subject Premises from into disrepair. falling 34. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to seal all open windows, and the roof, at the Subject Premises and waterproof all exterior surfaces of the Subject Premises. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS 35. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs' 36. The party walls shared between the Subject Premises and the respective properties have not been properly maintained or waterproofed by Douglas-Worghs. 37. Douglas-Worghs has also failed to pump water out of the Subject Premises. 38. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and prevent the Subject Premises from falling into disrepair. Douglas-Worghs' 39. The failure of and the City of New York to maintain the Subject Plaintiffs' Premises has led to frequent and reoccurring flooding of the. respective basements. 40. Allowing water to accumulate in the basement of Subject Premises and the failure to provide adequate waterproofing in the basement of the Subject Premises directly leads to Plaintiffs' flooding and damage to the respective basements. 41. As such, Defendants have unreasonably, substantially,. and intentionally damaged Plaintiffs' respective properties. 42. The actions of Defendants render them liable to Plaintiffs for damages in an amount to be determined by the Court but reasonably believed to be in excess of $350,000.00. 6 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS 43. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein. 44. The front façade of the Subject Premises has areas with significant wearing and delamination of the stonework. Douglas-Worghs' 45. has failed to maintain repair or replace the stonework at the front façade of the Subject Premises. 46. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises. 47. The deteriorated stonework at the front façade of the Subject Premises is a danger to public safety and must be patched and replaced as required to prevent further deterioration and falling debris. 48. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to patch or replace the front façade of the Subject Premises. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS 49. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein. 50. The party wall of the Subject Premises has significant areas of joist and failure. sheathing 51. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly maintain the party wall of the Subject Premises. 52. Douglas-Worghs has failed to properly repair the party wall of the Subject Premises. 53. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and as a result the stability of the party wall has become compromised. 7 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 Defendants' 54. As a result of the actions, the stability of the party wall of the Subject Premises has been compromised. 55. The party wall poses a danger to public safety, including the safety of the Plaintiffs. 56. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to repair, replace or have temporary shoring installed for the lateral stability of the party wall of the Subject Premises. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS 57. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs' 58. The respective party walls have developed cracks and holes over time as a result of large amounts of water standing against the stone rubble foundation walls. 59. The Defendants have failed to repair the cracks and holes in the shared party walls. 60. Additionally, Defendants have failed to properly waterproof the party walls. 61. The City of New York has failed to properly inspect the Subject Premises and as such the Plaintiff's respective party walls have developed cracks and holes which have led to Plaintiffs' flooding of the respective basements. 62. As such, a compatible fill needs to be injected throughout the foundation party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation party walls. 63. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to inject a compatible fill throughout the foundation party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation 8 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS 64. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth herein. Defendants' 65. The have failed to maintain the Subject Premises in a safe manner. Defendants' 66. As a result, the have unreasonably, substantially and intentionally damaged Plaintiffs' the respective properties. Defendants' 67. Additionally, have unreasonably, substantially and intentionally caused serious public safety concerns. 68. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of legal fees, in an amount to be determined by the court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $7,500.00, together with interest, costs and disbursements. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows. a. On the First Cause of Action agamst Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to seal all open windows, and the roof, at the Subject Premises and waterproof all exterior surfaces of the Subject Premises, b. On the Second Cause of Action against Defendants, a judgment, in an amount to be determined by the Court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $350,000.00; c. On the Third Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to patch or replace the front façade of the Subject Premises d. On the Fourth Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to repair, replace or have temporary shoring installed for the lateral stability of the party wall at the Subject Premises; 9 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 e. On the Fifth Cause of Action against Defendants, a declaratory judgment requiring Douglas-Worghs, and/or The City of New York, to inject a compatible fill throughout the foundation party walls to fill all voids in the existing stone rubble masonry foundation; and f. On the Sixth Cause of Actions against Defendants, an award of legal fees, in amount to be determined by the court, but reasonably believed to be in excess of $7,500.00, together with interest, costs and disbursements. Dated: December 2, 2021 Queens, New York Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. By: Ashley M. au , Esq. Attorneys for P1 intiffs 118-35 Quee 96 Floor lvd, Forest Hills e York 11375 718-261-7 10 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 VERIFICATION That the undersigned is an Associate with Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.; that I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my knowledge except for those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. The basis for my belief is conversations with the Plaintiffs and review of its documents. This verification is made by me and not by the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs do not have an office in Queens County where its attorney's offices are located. Ashley 1. auro Dated: December 2, 2021 Queens, New York 11 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2021 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 160811/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2021 HERTZ, CHERSON, & ROSENTHAL, P.C. INDEX No. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EDWARD SCHUMACHER, MARIBEL SCHUMACHER and CARLO-EDOARDO