FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/27/ :07 AM INDEX NO /2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/27/2021

Full text

(1)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---X BOARD OF MANAGERS OF SCHUMACHER

CONDOMINIUM and 36 BLEECKER STREET LLC,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

304 MULBERRY STREET OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., BROAD STREET

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, FOUNDATIONS GROUP I, INC., BENCHMARK CONTRACTING INC., LONG ISLAND CONCRETE INC., and LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

---X

Index No. 150296/2021 The basis of the venue is plaintiff's place of business

AMENDED

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Board of Managers of Schumacher Condominium (the “Board”) and 36 Bleecker Street LLC (“Unit Owner”; together with the Board, the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorneys, Rivkin Radler LLP, as and for an Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) against defendants, 304 Mulberry Street Operating Company, L.L.C. (“Mulberry”), Broad Street Development, LLC (“BSD”), Foundations Group I, Inc. (“Foundations”), Benchmark Contracting Inc. (“Benchmark”), Long Island Concrete Inc. (“LI Concrete”), and Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (“Langan”) (collectively the “Defendants”), hereby allege as follows:

PARTIES

1. The Schumacher Condominium (the “Condominium”) is a luxury multi-story

residential apartment building located at 36 Bleecker Street, New York, New York, 10012, Block

521, Lots 1501-1519 (formerly Lot 11) (the “Condo Building”).

(2)

2. The Condominium is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a condominium created pursuant to the Condominium Act, Article 9-B of the Real Property Law of the State of New York, having its principal place of business c/o Douglas Elliman Property Management, 675 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

3. The Board is a body duly established to govern the Condominium’s affairs and is authorized by the By-Laws of the Condominium to commence and maintain this action. Pursuant to the By-Laws, the Board has all the powers and duties necessary for, or incidental to, the administration of the affairs of the units of the Condominium including the contractual and fiduciary responsibility to enforce by legal means the terms, covenants and conditions of the Condominium’s governing documents.

4. Unit Owner was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with an address at c/o William Bricker PLLC, 501 Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, New York 10022.

5. Unit Owner is the owner of unit M2/3 and unit M4 in the Condominium, which units have been combined into a single unit (the “Unit”).

6. Upon information and belief, Mulberry was, and still is, foreign limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of New York with its principal place of business at c/o Broad Street Development, 80 Broad Street, 2

nd

Floor, New York, New York 10004.

7. Upon information and belief, Mulberry is and at all times hereinafter mentioned

was the owner of the property located at 304 Mulberry Street, New York, New York, 10012 a/k/a

40 Bleecker Street, New York, New York 10012 (the “Project Premises”) which Project Premises

is located immediately adjacent to the Condo Building.

(3)

8. Upon information and belief, BSD was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 80 Broad Street, 2

nd

Floor, New York, New York 10004.

9. Upon information and belief, BSD was and is the developer and/or owner of the Project Premises.

10. Upon information and belief, Foundations was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 520 W. 27

th

Street, Suite 302, New York, New York 10001.

11. Upon information and belief, Benchmark was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 3924 58

th

Street, Woodside, New York 11377.

12. Upon information and belief, LI Concrete was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 215-10 Hempstead Ave., Queens Village, New York 11429.

13. Upon information and belief, Langan was, and still is, a foreign business corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 300 Kimball Drive, 4

th

Floor, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Project and the Limited License Agreement

14. In or about 2016, Mulberry requested that Plaintiff grant it a license to access the

Condo Building in order to install protections in connection with Mulberry’s demolition of the

then-existing building and improvements on the Project Premises and the subsequent construction

(4)

of a new mixed use commercial and residential condominium building consisting of approximately fourteen (14) stories and other improvements associated with such new building (the “Project”).

15. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned Foundations was a project manager and/or general contractor for the Project.

16. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned Benchmark was a subcontractor of Foundations that performed certain excavation and/or construction activities at the Project Premises in connection with the Project.

17. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned LI Concrete was a subcontractor of Foundations that performed certain excavation and/or construction activities at the Project Premises in connection with the Project.

18. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned Langan was the engineer that designed the excavation work in connection with the Project, including preparation of geotechnical and site observation reports, and drawings for submission to the New York City Department of Buildings.

19. Mulberry and the Board entered into a written “Limited Non-Exclusive License and Agreement” dated May 30, 2017 (the “License Agreement”) whereby the Board granted Mulberry a limited license (the “License”) to access the Condo Building in order to erect, install, maintain and/or remove certain protections in and/or on the Condo Building (the “Work”) in order to protect the Condo Building during the Project.

20. Section 5 of the License agreement provides, in relevant part:

“…The Work and related activities undertaken upon the [Condo Building] shall

be accomplished in a safe and diligent manner in accordance with all Legal

Requirements. [Mulberry] covenants and agrees that in its performance of the

Work, it shall not cause: (i) any damage to any improvements on the [Condo

Building]…and any damage shall be governed by Section 6 of this Agreement

and only considered a breach if in violation of Section 6…”.

(5)

21. Section 6 of the License Agreement provides, in relevant part:

“[Mulberry] shall repair and/or restore, at its sole reasonable cost and

expense, in a good and workmanlike manner, damage to the [Condo Building]

caused by the Work and/or the Project to the condition in which it existed immediately prior to the commencement of the Work…(iii) within ten (10) business days after the earlier to occur of (a) the discovery thereof by [Mulberry], or (b) [the Board’s] notification to [Mulberry], or such period to which the parties otherwise agree (“Discovery”), repairing any damage caused by the Work and/or Project to the satisfaction and approval of [the Board] and [the Board’s]

Consultant, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld (the “Repair Work”)…”

22. Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the License Agreement, Mulberry was obligated to reimburse the Board for:

“…its reasonable architectural, engineering (including, without limitation, [the Board’s] Consultant’s], attorneys’ and other professional fees incurred in

connection with the review, drafting, revision or extension of this Agreement, the review of plans, drawings and specifications, and the review and monitoring of work as provided for in this Agreement; together with any reasonable costs incurred by [the Board] in connection with the enforcement of (in the event of breach of the Agreement by [Mulberry]) and/or performance under this

Agreement…within thirty (30) days of written notice of [the Board], which notice shall include itemized bills…of the fees incurred and services performed.”

23. Pursuant to Section 14(b) of the License Agreement, Mulberry was required to pay

“…interest at the rate of 9% per annum on invoices and/or monetary obligation to [the Board]

under this Agreement not timely paid as required herein.”

24. Section 14(c) of the License Agreement provides, in relevant part:

“In any litigation by either party to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing or defending the action.”

25. Section 15(c) of the License Agreement provides, in relevant part:

“[Mulberry] represents that all the Work shall be performed in a safe, skillful and

workmanlike manner and in accordance with Legal Requirements and that, during

the performance of the Work, [Mulberry], its contractors, subcontractors,

(6)

employees, agents, and consultants shall…(iii) not damage any part of the [Condo Building] or any personal property owned or held by any tenant, subtenant or occupant of the [Condo Building], and any damage shall be governed by Section 6 of this Agreement and only considered a breach if in violation of Section 6.

[Mulberry] shall take all reasonable protective measures and utilize all reasonable protective devices as may be necessary as reasonably determined by [Mulberry’s]

Consultant to reasonably protect [the Condo Building] from damage and debris that may result from the Work, to provide for the safety of all persons and property in or about the [Condo Building]…”.

26. Pursuant to Section 17(a) of the License Agreement, Mulberry was obligated to pay a monthly license fee of $3,000 to the Board in consideration for the granting of the License until the installation of the Protective Work on the roof and terraces of the Condo Building (the “Rooftop Protective Work Commencement”).

27. Pursuant to paragraph 17(b) of the License Agreement, upon the Rooftop Protection Work Commencement, Mulberry was obligated to pay a monthly license fee of $6,000 to the Board until 30 months after the date that the Agreement was executed (the “Termination Date”).

28. Paragraph 17(b) of the License Agreement further provides, in relevant part:

“In the event the Protective Work on the roof and/or terrace(s) remains and/or there remains any outstanding Repair Work beyond the Termination

Date…[Mulberry] shall pay [the Board] an increased total Monthly License Fee of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) per month (the “Escalated Monthly License Fee”), until…the completion of the Repair Work, to be approved by [the Board], such approval not to be unreasonably withheld…[a]ll payments under this Section shall be paid within five (5) business days of the end of each month.”

29. Section 15(c)(iv) of the License Agreement provides that Mulberry is required to reimburse the Board for its reasonable costs incurred for increased pest/rodent control for the Condo Building resulting from the Project.

30. On July 11, 2018, the Board, the Unit Owner and Mulberry executed a certain

Amendment to the License Agreement (the “Amendment”) whereby Unit Owner agreed, among

(7)

other things, to grant Mulberry access to the Unit for the purpose of installing certain property protections in the Unit.

31. The Amendment provided that, except as amended and modified by the Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged.

B. The Damage

32. Upon information and belief, the support of excavation and foundation construction (the “Excavation Work”) for the Project was performed by Foundations, Benchmark and/or LI Concrete from approximately December, 2017 until October, 2018 at the direction, and with the oversight, of Mulberry, BSD and Langan.

33. Upon information and belief, Langan was the engineer retained by Mulberry to design the Excavation Work.

34. Beginning in October, 2018 and continuing thereafter, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’

consultants identified significant damage to the Condo Building (the “Condo Building Damage”) as a result of the Excavation Work and the negligent design of same.

35. Such Condo Building Damage included, but was not limited to: (a) step cracking between bricks and cracked window sills along the north façade at the west side of the Condo Building; (b) cracking and separation at internal windows and walls in the northwest corner of the Condo Building along its entire height; and (c) observable movement, settlement and rotation of the Condo Building.

36. Plaintiffs’ consultants determined that the Excavation Work, including the

negligent design of same, was the sole proximate cause of the Condo Building Damage.

(8)

37. Mulberry and BSD have, on multiple occasions, admitted and conceded that the Excavation Work was the sole proximate cause of the Condo Building Damage.

38. On April 4, 2019, the Board notified Mulberry, in writing, of the Condo Building Damage.

39. On October 16, 2019, the Board provided Mulberry with a design proposal for the work necessary to repair the Condo Building Damage (“Condo Repair Work”).

40. On December 9, 2019, the Board provided Mulberry with proposed plans for the Condo Repair Work.

41. The Board provided Mulberry with multiple estimates from qualified contractors demonstrating that the cost of the Condo Repair Work would exceed $300,000.00.

42. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mulberry has failed and refused to commence or perform the Condo Repair Work and/or remit payment to the Board to cover the cost of same.

43. Upon information and belief, Mulberry and BSD’s insurance carriers were also notified of the Condo Building Damage and were provided copies of the design proposal and estimates for the Condo Repair Work.

44. To date, Mulberry and BSD’s insurance carriers have failed and refused to pay for the Condo Repair Work.

45. The Unit was also damaged (the “Unit Damage”) as a result of the Excavation Work and the negligent design of same.

46. Mulberry failed and refused to repair the Unit Damage or reimburse Unit Owner for the cost of same despite multiple written demands.

47. Since Mulberry failed and refused to repair the Unit Damage, Unit Owner arranged

for the repair of the Unit Damage at its sole cost and expense.

(9)

48. Mulberry, BSD and Langan have violated the New York City Building Code (the

“Building Code”) and breached the License Agreement and the Amendment by: (i) failing to adequately design the Excavation Work; (ii) failing to monitor, inspect and protect the Condo Building during the Excavation Work; (iii) failing and refusing to repair the Condo Building Damage and/or the Unit Damage; and (iv) failing and refusing to compensate Plaintiff for the Condo Building Damage and/or the Unit Damage caused by the Excavation Work.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (STRICT LIABILITY)

49. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

50. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Langan designed the Excavation Work.

51. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants performed the Excavation Work.

52. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants, their employees, contractors, subcontractors, independent contractors, agents and/or servants owed Plaintiffs a non-delegable duty to design and perform the Excavation Work in a safe and prudent manner, such that their actions would not cause any damage to the Condo Building and/or the Unit.

53. Each of the Defendants herein designed, caused, conducted and/or participated in excavation work at the Project Premises and failed to comply with §§3309.1, 3309.4 and 3309.4.1 of the Building Code.

54. Defendants were responsible for the supervision of their employees, contractors, subcontractors, independent contractors, agents and servants in connection with the Excavation Work and the design of same.

55. Section 3309.1 of the Building Code provides, in relevant part:

(10)

“Adjoining public and private property, including persons thereon, shall be protected from damage and injury during construction or demolition work in accordance with the requirements of this section. Protection must be provided for footings, foundations, party walls, chimneys, skylights and roofs. Provisions shall be made to control water runoff and erosions during construction and demolition activities…”.

56. Section 3309.4 of the Building Code provides, in relevant part:

“Whenever soil or foundation work occurs, regardless of the depth of such, the person who causes such to be made shall, at all times during the course of such work and at his or her own expense, preserve and protect from damage any adjoining structures, including but not limited to footings and foundations,

provided such person is afforded a license in accordance with the requirements of Section 3309.2 to enter and inspect the adjoining buildings and property, and to perform such work thereon as may be necessary for such purpose…”.

57. Section 3309.4.1 of the Building Code provides, in relevant part:

“The following additional requirements shall apply during excavation:

1. The person causing the excavation shall support the vertical and lateral load of the adjoining structure by proper foundations, underpinning, or other equivalent means where the level of the foundations of the adjoining structure is at or above the level of the bottom of the new excavation…”.

58. Section 3309 of the Building Code is a strict liability statute and imposes absolute liability on all persons designing, causing conducting or participating in excavation work.

59. Defendants designed, caused and/or permitted the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises to be carried out in violation of the Building Code Sections 3309.1, 3309.4, 3309.4.1, as well as other statutes and regulations applicable to construction sites in the City of New York.

60. Defendants supervised the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition

work at the Project Premises.

(11)

61. Defendants designed the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

62. Defendants participated in the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

63. Defendants had a duty to protect and preserve the Condo Building and the Unit from damage during the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

64. Langan had a duty to properly design the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises in such a way that would protect and preserve the Condo Building and the Unit from damage during said work.

65. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Mulberry was afforded a license to enter and inspect the Condo Building and the Unit and to perform such work thereon as may be necessary to protect the Condo Building during the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

66. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Condo Building and the Unit sustained damages during the course of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises including, but not limited to, structural, exterior and interior damage and lost use of and/or diminished use of the Condo Building and/or the Unit.

67. Defendants are responsible for the failure of their employees, contractors,

subcontractors, independent contractors, agents and servants to comply with the Building Code

under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

(12)

68. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs for the damages caused to the Condo Building and the Unit as a result of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

69. As a result of the foregoing, Langan is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for the damages caused to the Condo Building and the Unit as a result of the improper design of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

70. The Board has suffered damages in a sum to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $350,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.

71. The Unit Owner has suffered damages in a sum to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (NEGLIGENCE)

72. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

73. In designing, causing, conducting and/or participating in the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises, Defendants were obligated to exercise reasonable care to protect the Condo Building and the Unit from damage.

74. Each of the Defendants has breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs by failing

to exercise such reasonable care in the design and performance of the Excavation Work,

construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

(13)

75. Defendants owed Plaintiffs and the residents of the Condo Building due care in protecting the Condo Building and the Unit from damage during the course of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises.

76. Defendants breached their duty of due care to the Plaintiffs by causing damage to the Condo Building and the Unit wholly by reason of their negligence and the negligence of their contractors, subcontractors, agents, servants, and/or employees, in, among other things: (i) failing to perform, design, manage, monitor, operate, control, inspect, regulate and/or supervise their work with reasonable care, so as to prevent, limit or eliminate, vibrating, cracking, soil or foundation movement, and/or damage to the Condo Building and/or the Unit arising out of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises; (ii) failing to take proper and/or necessary precautions to avoid causing damage to the Condo Building and/or the Unit during the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work at the Project Premises;

(iii) failing to use sound excavation, construction and/or demolition procedures during the design and performance of the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work; failing to use due care and caution; and failing to comply with the applicable provisions of the Building Code governing the design and performance of excavation, construction and/or demolition work including, but not limited to, sections 3309.4 and 3309.4.1 of the Building Code; (iv) failing to investigate the qualifications of individuals and/or entities employed and/or hired to design and/or perform the Excavation Work, construction work and/or demolition work; and (v) in otherwise being negligent, careless and culpable under the circumstances.

77. Defendants have acted, and continue to act, with a conscious and deliberate

disregard for the safety and interests of the Plaintiffs and the residents of the Condo Building and

the public in general.

(14)

78. Defendants’ conduct has been, and continues to be, wanton, reckless and malicious.

79. Defendants are purposely causing, or are grossly indifferent to causing, injury to Plaintiffs and others.

80. Defendants’ conduct evidences a conscious disregard for the rights of others or, in the alternative, was so reckless as to amount to such disregard.

81. The Condo Building Damage commenced in 2018 and the Condo Building has remained in its damaged state to date as a result of Defendants’ failure to repair such damage.

82. The Condo Building Damage and Unit Damage were caused solely by the gross negligence, negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendants without any fault or culpable conduct on the part of the Plaintiffs.

83. Defendants are responsible for the negligence of their contractors, subcontractors, employees, independent contractors, agents and servants under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

84. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, the Board has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $350,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.

85. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, the Unit Owner has suffered, and

will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but

believed to be in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs,

disbursements and expenses.

(15)

AS AND FOR A THIRD CASE OF ACTION AGAINST MULBERRY (BREACH OF CONTRACT)

86. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

87. The License Agreement and Amendment represent fully enforceable contracts.

88. The Board fully performed all of its obligations under the License Agreement.

89. The Unit Owner fully performed all of its obligations under the Amendment.

90. Mulberry breached the License Agreement and the Amendment by, among other things: (a) failing to perform the Excavation Work, construction work and demolition work in a safe and diligent manner in accordance with all Legal Requirements; (b) failing to perform the Excavation Work, construction work and demolition work in a safe, skillful and workmanlike manner; (c) causing damage to the Condo Building and the Unit; (d) failing to repair the Condo Damage; (e) failing to repair the Unit Damage; (f) failing to reimburse Unit Owner for the cost to repair the Unit Damage; (g) failing to pay the Board the Escalated Monthly License Fee for the months of September, 2020 through January, 2021 in the total amount of $45,000.00; (h) failing to reimburse the Board for attorneys’ fees incurred through November 30, 2020 in the amount of

$8,500.00; (i) failing to reimburse the Board for professional fees incurred through November 30, 2020 in the amount of $13,575.64; and (j) failing to reimburse the Board for its costs incurred for increase pest/rodent control for the Condo Building in the amount of $1,255.50.

91. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, the Board has suffered, and will

continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed

to be in excess of $425,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and

expenses.

(16)

92. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, the Unit Owner has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MULBERRY (ATTORNEYS’ FEES)

93. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

94. As a result of Mulberry’s multiple breaches of the License Agreement and the Amendment, Plaintiffs employed attorneys to commence the instant litigation in order to enforce Plaintiffs’ rights and remedies under the License Agreement and Amendment, at law and in equity.

95. Pursuant to Section 14(c) of the License Agreement, Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this litigation.

96. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to a money judgment against Mulberry in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $250,000.00, together with interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that the Court grant Plaintiffs:

(i) On their First Cause of Action: (i) a money judgment in favor of the Board against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $350,000.00 together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.; (ii) a money judgment in favor of the Unit Owner against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses;

(ii) On their Second Cause of Action: (i) a money judgment in favor of the

Board against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial,

but believed to be in excess of $350,000.00 together with punitive damages, interest, costs,

disbursements and expenses; (ii) a money judgment in favor of the Unit Owner against the

Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be

(17)

in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.;

(iii) On their Third Cause of Action: (i) a money judgment in favor of the Board against Mulberry in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of

$425,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses; (ii) a money judgment in favor of the Unit Owner against Mulberry in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of $35,000.00, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements and expenses.;

(iv) On their Fourth Cause of Action: a money judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs against Mulberry in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, but believed to be in excess of

$250,000.00, together with interest, costs, disbursements and expenses; and

(v) Such other and further relief in favor of Plaintiffs as this Court deems just, proper and equitable.

Dated: New York, New York April 27, 2021

RIVKIN RADLER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: Erez Glambosky

Erez Glambosky

Jeremy B. Honig

477 Madison Ave., Suite 410

New York, New York 10022

(212) 455-9555

(18)

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :