Preview
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
- against -
VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is the
8"'
defendant's residence. The defendant's place of business is 111 Avenue New York, NY
10011.
To the above-named Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a Notice
of Appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within 20 days after the service of this Summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete, ifthis 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 the relief demanded in the
Complaint.
Dated: New York, New York
May 23, 2018
Yours, et ·.
Stavros E. Sitinas
STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 539-1800
TO: VILLAGEFH LLC
8"
111 8 Avenue
New York, NY 10011
SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.
78"
264 East 78 Street, Ground Floor
New York, NY 10075
1 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
- against -
VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendants.
_________________ _____________________________ __--------------------X
X
Plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, by his attorneys, STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC, as
and for his Verified Complaint, upon information and belief, alleges the following:
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BEHALF OF T1lE PLAINTIFF ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
1. That at all times herein mentioned, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, was
and stillis a resident of the City of Irvington and State of New Jersey.
2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH LLC (herein
"VILLAGEFH"), was and still is a New York corporation duly authorized to transact business in
the State of New York.
3. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was a domestic
limited liability company duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York.
4. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was and stillis a
domestic business corporation, duly authorized to conduct business within the State of New
York.
2
2 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was a foreign
business corporation duly licensed to do business under and by virtue of, the laws of the State of
New York.
6. At all times hereinafter mentioned herein, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, transacted
business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of
New York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial revenue
from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State of New York and expected or
should have reasonably expected itsacts to have consequences within the State of New York
and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.
7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, was a business
entity authorized to do business in the State of New York.
8. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the owner of
a certain premises/construction site located at 27 Christopher Street, in the County, City and
State of New York (hereinafter "premises/construction site").
9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the lessee of
the aforesaid premises/construction site.
10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the lessor of
the aforesaid premises/construction site.
1 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents,
servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site.
12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents,
servants and/or employees managed the aforesaid premises/construction site.
3
3 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents,
servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site.
14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents,
servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site.
15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents,
servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site.
16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents,
servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site.
17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents,
servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site.
18. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work, labor,
services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be
conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.
19. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the construction manager to provide certain work, labor,
services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be
conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.
20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor and/or construction manager and/or
a contractor providing certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work,
repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.
4
4 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
21. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION"
MANAGEMENT INC (herein "SMI CONSTRUCTION") was a domestic corporation duly
licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York.
22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was a
foreign corporation duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York.
23. That at alltimes mentioned herein, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION
transacted business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the
State of New York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial
revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State of New York and
expected or should have reasonably expected its acts to have consequences within the State of
New York and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.
24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, was a
business entity authorized to do business in the State of New York.
25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was
the owner of a certain premises/construction site located at 27 Christopher Street, in the County,
City and State of New York (hereinafter "premises/construction site").
26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was
the lessee of the aforesaid premises/construction site.
27. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was
the lessor of the aforesaid premises/construction site.
28. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site.
5
5 of 15
. .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
29. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees managed the aforesaid premises/construction site.
30. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site.
31. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site.
32. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site.
33. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site.
34. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its
agents, servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site.
35. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work,
labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to
be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.
36. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the construction manager to provide certain
work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and
renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site.
37. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor and/or construction
manager and/or a contractor providing certain work, labor, services and material with respect to
6
6 of 15
. .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid
premises/construction site.
38. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief,
defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as an agent of the owner VILLAGEFH at the
foresaid premises/ construction site.
39. That at alltimes mentioned herein and on or prior to September 13, 2016,
construction and/or renovation and/or repair work and/or demolition work was underway at the
aforesaid premises/construction site.
40. That at on or before, September 13, 2016 the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant,
SMI CONSTRUCTION and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction site on
and before September 13, 2016.
41. That at on or before, September 13, 2016 the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant,
VILLAGEFH and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction site on and before
September 13, 2016.
42. That on or about, September 13, 2016, while acting within the scope of his
employment at the aforesaid premises/construction site, the plaintiff was injured when he was
caused to fall off a makeshift ramp/walkway which lacked any protective railing or barrier, while
carrying a bucket of construction debris, thereby causing him to sustain serious and permeant
injuries.
43. That the above occurrence was caused solely by and through the negligence of the
defendants herein, without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto.
7
7 of 15
. . . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
44. That the defendants, and/or each of them had both actual and constructive notice
of the dangerous and defective conditions and practices complained of herein.
45. Plaintiff asserts an exemption from the abolition of joint and several liability
pursuant to Article 16 of the C.P.L.R.
46. That the defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their agents, servants, associates
and/or employees were negligent, careless and reckless, in that they:
a) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to
properly construct, shore, equip, guard, arrange, operate and conduct the construction activities at
the construction site as aforesaid, so as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety
to the persons so employed therein, and more particularly to the plaintiff herein.
b) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to
work;
c) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff and the workers at the
construction site thereat, with adequate, ample and proper ladders so as to perform their labor.
d) Failed and omitted to insure that the working areas within the
premises/construction site of the construction site as aforesaid were kept free of hazardous
conditions.
e) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with a proper ladder.
f) Failed and omitted to provide the proper flooring.
g) Failed and omitted to properly inspect the construction siteas
aforesaid.
h) Failed and omitted to properly and adequately coordinate the
construction activities at the construction site as aforesaid so as to prevent the various trades
8
8 of 15
. . . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
from interfering with one another.
i) Failed and omitted to construct and/or install barricades and/or
other warnings so as to apprise workers, and more particularly the plaintiff herein, of the
dangerous conditions existing thereat.
j) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 240 of the Labor Law
of the State of New York.
k) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 241 of the Labor Law
of the State of New York.
1) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 241-a of the Labor Law
of the State of New York.
m) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 200 of the Labor Law
of the State of New York.
n) Failed and omitted to comply with Rule 23 of the Industrial Code.
o) Failed and omitted to properly secure the work area so that plaintiff
could perform his labor in a safe environment.
p) Failed and omitted to keep the work areas free of debris and other
material.
q) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with adequate lifting
devices.
r) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed an omitted to provide
the plaintiff with an adequate and safe means to perform his duties.
s) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to
provide the plaintiff with the proper tools to perform his duties.
9
9 of 15
. . . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
t) Were otherwise negligent, careless and reckless.
47. That as a result of the negligence of the defendants, and/or each of them, the
plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, became, stillis and for a long time to come, will be sick,
sore, lame, bruised, injured, disabled and wounded in and about the various parts of his head,
limbs, body, blood vessels and surrounding tissues, and has suffered severe and extreme mental
shock, anguish and psychic injuries, and that plaintiff was otherwise injured, and upon
information and belief, said injuries are permanent. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff
was obligated to and did necessarily employ medical aid , hospital services, medicinals and
medical supplies in an attempt to cure the aforesaid injuries, and has been prevented from his
usual duties and will be so prevented for a long time to come.
48. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, has been
damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would
otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY
49. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges
"1" "48"
each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the
same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at
length below.
50. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 200 of the
Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect.
51. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants,
and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.
10
10 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
52. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were
in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.
53. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff,
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.
54. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been
damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would
otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY
55. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ repeats, reiterates and realleges each
"1" "54"
and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the same
force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at length
below.
56. That at alltimes mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 240 of the
Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect.
57. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants,
and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.
58. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were
in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.
59. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff.
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.
11
11 of 15
. . .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
60. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODR1GUEZ has been
damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would
otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY
61. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges
"1" "60"
each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the
same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at
length below.
62. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 241 of the
Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect.
63. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants,
and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above.
64. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were
in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above.
65. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff,
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above.
66. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been
damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would
otherwise have jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ demands judgment against the
defendants on the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of action in a sum which exceeds the
12
12 of 15
. .
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with the
costs and disbursements of this action.
Dated: New York, New York
May 23, 2018
Yours, etc.,
c
Stavro?s'l+-Nitinas
~
STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 539-1800
13
13 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
VERIFICATION BY ATTORNEY
Stavros E. Sitinas, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts in the State of
New York, hereby affirms, under the penalties of perjury, as follows:
1) That deponent is the attorney for the plaintiff in the action within; that deponent
has read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof; that the same
is true to deponent's own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon
information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes itto be true.
2) The reason that this verification is not made by plaintiff and is made by deponent
is that plaintiff does not reside in the county where the attorneys for the plaintiff have their office.
3) Deponent further says that the source of deponent's information and the grounds
of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are from
investigations made on behalf of said plaintiff.
Dated: New York, New York
May 23, 2018
STAVROS E. SITINAS
l4
14 of 15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
Index No.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
- against -
VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendants.
SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
4th
444 Madison Avenue, FlOOr
New York, NY 10022
(212) 539-1800
15
15 of 15
Preview
. . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Index No.: Plaintiff, SUMMONS - against - VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is the 8"' defendant's residence. The defendant's place of business is 111 Avenue New York, NY 10011. To the above-named Defendants: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a Notice of Appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within 20 days after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete, ifthis 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 the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: New York, New York May 23, 2018 Yours, et ·. Stavros E. Sitinas STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 539-1800 TO: VILLAGEFH LLC 8" 111 8 Avenue New York, NY 10011 SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC. 78" 264 East 78 Street, Ground Floor New York, NY 10075 1 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X --------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Index No.: Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT - against - VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants. _________________ _____________________________ __--------------------X X Plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, by his attorneys, STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC, as and for his Verified Complaint, upon information and belief, alleges the following: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BEHALF OF T1lE PLAINTIFF ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ 1. That at all times herein mentioned, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, was and stillis a resident of the City of Irvington and State of New Jersey. 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH LLC (herein "VILLAGEFH"), was and still is a New York corporation duly authorized to transact business in the State of New York. 3. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was a domestic limited liability company duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York. 4. At alltimes hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was and stillis a domestic business corporation, duly authorized to conduct business within the State of New York. 2 2 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH was a foreign business corporation duly licensed to do business under and by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. 6. At all times hereinafter mentioned herein, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, transacted business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of New York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State of New York and expected or should have reasonably expected itsacts to have consequences within the State of New York and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. 7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, was a business entity authorized to do business in the State of New York. 8. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the owner of a certain premises/construction site located at 27 Christopher Street, in the County, City and State of New York (hereinafter "premises/construction site"). 9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the lessee of the aforesaid premises/construction site. 10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant VILLAGEFH was the lessor of the aforesaid premises/construction site. 1 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents, servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site. 12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by its agents, servants and/or employees managed the aforesaid premises/construction site. 3 3 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents, servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site. 14. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents, servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site. 15. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents, servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site. 16. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents, servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site. 17. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VILLAGEFH, by itsagents, servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site. 18. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 19. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the construction manager to provide certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, VILLAGEFH was acting as the general contractor and/or construction manager and/or a contractor providing certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 4 4 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 21. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION" MANAGEMENT INC (herein "SMI CONSTRUCTION") was a domestic corporation duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York. 22. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business under the laws of the State of New York. 23. That at alltimes mentioned herein, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION transacted business within the State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of New York or engaged in other persistent courses, conduct and/or derived substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the State of New York and expected or should have reasonably expected its acts to have consequences within the State of New York and/or derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. 24. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, was a business entity authorized to do business in the State of New York. 25. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was the owner of a certain premises/construction site located at 27 Christopher Street, in the County, City and State of New York (hereinafter "premises/construction site"). 26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was the lessee of the aforesaid premises/construction site. 27. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant SMI CONSTRUCTION, was the lessor of the aforesaid premises/construction site. 28. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees operated the aforesaid premises/construction site. 5 5 of 15 . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 29. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees managed the aforesaid premises/construction site. 30. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees maintained the aforesaid premises/construction site. 31. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees controlled the aforesaid premises/construction site. 32. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees supervised the aforesaid premises/construction site. 33. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees inspected the aforesaid premises/construction site. 34. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION, by its agents, servants and/or employees repaired the aforesaid premises/construction site. 35. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor to provide certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 36. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the construction manager to provide certain work, labor, services and material with respect to certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 37. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as the general contractor and/or construction manager and/or a contractor providing certain work, labor, services and material with respect to 6 6 of 15 . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 certain work, repairs, construction and renovations to be conducted at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 38. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned and upon information and belief, defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION was acting as an agent of the owner VILLAGEFH at the foresaid premises/ construction site. 39. That at alltimes mentioned herein and on or prior to September 13, 2016, construction and/or renovation and/or repair work and/or demolition work was underway at the aforesaid premises/construction site. 40. That at on or before, September 13, 2016 the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant, SMI CONSTRUCTION and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction site on and before September 13, 2016. 41. That at on or before, September 13, 2016 the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, was in the course of his employment for a contractor and/or subcontractor hired by defendant, VILLAGEFH and was performing work at the aforesaid premises/construction site on and before September 13, 2016. 42. That on or about, September 13, 2016, while acting within the scope of his employment at the aforesaid premises/construction site, the plaintiff was injured when he was caused to fall off a makeshift ramp/walkway which lacked any protective railing or barrier, while carrying a bucket of construction debris, thereby causing him to sustain serious and permeant injuries. 43. That the above occurrence was caused solely by and through the negligence of the defendants herein, without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto. 7 7 of 15 . . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 44. That the defendants, and/or each of them had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous and defective conditions and practices complained of herein. 45. Plaintiff asserts an exemption from the abolition of joint and several liability pursuant to Article 16 of the C.P.L.R. 46. That the defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their agents, servants, associates and/or employees were negligent, careless and reckless, in that they: a) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to properly construct, shore, equip, guard, arrange, operate and conduct the construction activities at the construction site as aforesaid, so as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons so employed therein, and more particularly to the plaintiff herein. b) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work; c) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff and the workers at the construction site thereat, with adequate, ample and proper ladders so as to perform their labor. d) Failed and omitted to insure that the working areas within the premises/construction site of the construction site as aforesaid were kept free of hazardous conditions. e) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with a proper ladder. f) Failed and omitted to provide the proper flooring. g) Failed and omitted to properly inspect the construction siteas aforesaid. h) Failed and omitted to properly and adequately coordinate the construction activities at the construction site as aforesaid so as to prevent the various trades 8 8 of 15 . . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 from interfering with one another. i) Failed and omitted to construct and/or install barricades and/or other warnings so as to apprise workers, and more particularly the plaintiff herein, of the dangerous conditions existing thereat. j) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 240 of the Labor Law of the State of New York. k) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 241 of the Labor Law of the State of New York. 1) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 241-a of the Labor Law of the State of New York. m) Failed and omitted to comply with Section 200 of the Labor Law of the State of New York. n) Failed and omitted to comply with Rule 23 of the Industrial Code. o) Failed and omitted to properly secure the work area so that plaintiff could perform his labor in a safe environment. p) Failed and omitted to keep the work areas free of debris and other material. q) Failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with adequate lifting devices. r) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed an omitted to provide the plaintiff with an adequate and safe means to perform his duties. s) Negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to provide the plaintiff with the proper tools to perform his duties. 9 9 of 15 . . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 t) Were otherwise negligent, careless and reckless. 47. That as a result of the negligence of the defendants, and/or each of them, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, became, stillis and for a long time to come, will be sick, sore, lame, bruised, injured, disabled and wounded in and about the various parts of his head, limbs, body, blood vessels and surrounding tissues, and has suffered severe and extreme mental shock, anguish and psychic injuries, and that plaintiff was otherwise injured, and upon information and belief, said injuries are permanent. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff was obligated to and did necessarily employ medical aid , hospital services, medicinals and medical supplies in an attempt to cure the aforesaid injuries, and has been prevented from his usual duties and will be so prevented for a long time to come. 48. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY 49. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges "1" "48" each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at length below. 50. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 200 of the Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect. 51. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above. 10 10 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 52. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above. 53. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above. 54. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY 55. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ repeats, reiterates and realleges each "1" "54" and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at length below. 56. That at alltimes mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 240 of the Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect. 57. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above. 58. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above. 59. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff. ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above. 11 11 of 15 . . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 60. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODR1GUEZ has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ BASED UPON A THEORY OF STATUTORY LIABILITY 61. That the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, repeats, reiterates and realleges "1" "60" each and every allegation of the complaint in paragraphs numbered through with the same force and effect as though each and every allegation were set forth more fully herein at length below. 62. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, Section 241 of the Labor law of the State of New York was in full force and effect. 63. That at all times mentioned herein, and on September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were subject to the provisions of the statute as cited herein above. 64. That on or about, September 13, 2016, the defendants, and/or each of them were in violation of the Statute as cited as herein above. 65. That as a result of the statutory violation as cited herein above, the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ was caused to sustain the injuries as set forth herein above. 66. That as a result of the foregoing the plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ demands judgment against the defendants on the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of action in a sum which exceeds the 12 12 of 15 . . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 jurisdictional limit of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: New York, New York May 23, 2018 Yours, etc., c Stavro?s'l+-Nitinas ~ STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 539-1800 13 13 of 15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 VERIFICATION BY ATTORNEY Stavros E. Sitinas, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts in the State of New York, hereby affirms, under the penalties of perjury, as follows: 1) That deponent is the attorney for the plaintiff in the action within; that deponent has read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes itto be true. 2) The reason that this verification is not made by plaintiff and is made by deponent is that plaintiff does not reside in the county where the attorneys for the plaintiff have their office. 3) Deponent further says that the source of deponent's information and the grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are from investigations made on behalf of said plaintiff. Dated: New York, New York May 23, 2018 STAVROS E. SITINAS l4 14 of 15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 04:00 PM INDEX NO. 154863/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018 Index No. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, - against - VILLAGEFH LLC and SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants. SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT STAVROS E. SITINAS, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff(s) 4th 444 Madison Avenue, FlOOr New York, NY 10022 (212) 539-1800 15 15 of 15