Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COUNTY OF NASSAU
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT FRANCE,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
Date Purchased:
SUMMONS
-against-
Plaintiff designates:
Nassau County for Trial.
Venue is based on Plaintiffs
residence: 400 Marguerite Avenue,
South Floral Park, New York,
Venue is set in Nassau County where the plaintiff resides and where the criminal act, the
predicate of this action occurred, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR)
213-b.
6. This Court has original personal jurisdiction over this matter, exclusive of interest and
costs.
FACTS
7. Plaintiff ROBERT FRANCE, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority
was the victim of a criminal offence perpetrated by defendants - DEREK GAINES and
MELISSA GASKIN- on August 10, 2009, in Nassau County, New York.
8. On August 10, 2009, Robert France responded to a telephone call from Melissa Gaskin,
his former girlfriend, requesting to come to his home to pick up a cell phone delivered by
T-Mobile to his home. He suggested forwarding the cell phone to her but she insisted on
picking the phone up personally from his home.
9. On August 8, 2010, Derek Gaines and Melissa Gaskin were known to be employees of
MAJOR ENERGY.
10. On August 10, 2009, at about 10:30 p.m., Derek Gaines dressed in his Major Energy
uniform (a grey polo shirt with the company's insignia) and GASKIN, with Major
Energy's identification badge, drove in a Major Energy company van to Mr. Frances
home at 400 Marguerite Avenue, South Floral Park, New York.
11. Mr. France gave Ms. Gaskin the cell phone and they spoke briefly. Seeing a man, who he
later learned was Mr. Gaines in the driver's seat of the company van and wearing the
company's uniform, Mr. France went towards the company van to ask the driver a
question. As Mr. France came towards the van, Mr. Gaines, without saying a word and
without provocation, stepped out of the driver's side of the company van with a firearm in
his hand and fired multiple shots at point blank range at Mr. France. As Mr. France
turned to run away from the shooter, Mr. Gaines shot him in the back.
12. Mr. France fell injured to the ground, with blood coming from his body wounds.
13. Mr. Gaines told Ms. Gaskin to get in the van, which she did, leaving Mr. France bleeding
on the sidewalk with gunshot wounds to his lower back and right calf.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - RECKLESSNESS
14. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
paragraphs 1 through 13.
15.
That on or about August 10, 2009, defendants GAINES and GASKIN assaulted the
plaintiff in the first degree by intentionally causing serious physical injury to him by
means of a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun, in violation of 120.10 of New York's
Penal Law ("PL").
16. That defendants GAINES and GASKIN, with intent to disfigure the plaintiff seriously
and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of
his body, caused such injury to the plaintiff.
17. That under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, defendants
GAINES and GASKIN, recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of
death to the plaintiff, and thereby caused serious physical injury to him.
18.
That both GAINES and GASKIN have recently been arrested five (5) months from the
shooting (after being on the run from the law) and have been charged with the criminal
offence of assault in the first degree under the PL 120.10, supra.
5
28. As a result of the multiple gunshots, Mr. FRANCE sustained serious personal injuries,
underwent emergency surgery and currently has a bullet lodged in his stomach. Medical
opinion has concluded that the lodged bullet is best left alone (still leaking harmful
substances into the plaintiff's bloodstream) to avoid more serious complications to his
health.
29. As a result of his serious injuries, plaintiff is experiencing severe pain and suffering
especially in his stomach area where the bullet lodged.
GASKIN had a criminal history, prior arrests and/or convictions, vicious propensities,
had it conducted an adequate hiring procedure and background checks.
35. That MAJOR ENERGY failed in its duty to exercise due/reasonable care in the
employment, training and supervision of GAINES and GASKIN, to find out whether they
were competent to do their work without danger of harm to others, as its servants and
agents, given that GAINES's and GASKIN's particular duties and responsibilities
involved entering the homes of the general public to sell the services of defendant
MAJOR ENERGY.
36. That MAJOR ENERGY was negligent in retaining GAINES and GASKIN when it
acquired or should have acquired actual or constructive knowledge of GAINES and
GASKIN's criminal history, criminal and vicious propensities.
37. Defendant MAJOR ENERGY failed in its duty and is liable for the harm to Mr.
FRANCE in that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen in the absence of a
background check, the likelihood of injury to the general public, including Mr. FRANCE,
by employees, in this instance defendant GAINES, who were carrying a loaded firearm.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITY
38. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
paragraphs 1 through 37.
39. That MAJOR ENERGY acting through its agents or employees is liable for the harm
suffered by the plaintiff at the hand of its employees - GAINES and GASKIN, under the
doctrine of respondeat superior.
40. That MAJOR ENERGY's aforesaid negligence ties it to the actions of its employees - codefendants GAINES and GASKIN who were both using MAJOR ENERGYs van,
8
dressed in company uniform and wearing company identification at the time of the
criminal assault on the plaintiff. The company is deemed constructively present at the
crime scene when the plaintiff was shot by defendant GAINES and both GAINES and
GASKIN fled the scene in MAJOR ENERGYs van.
41. Pursuant to CPLR 3017 (c), the amount of damages sought - FOUR HUNDRED AND
FIFTY THOUSAND ($450,000.00) DOLLARS, exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all
lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff FRANCE demands judgment as against defendants
MAJOR ENERGY, GAINES and GASKIN, in the sum to be determined by the
honorable Court as reasonable and just compensation.
Dated: Hollis, New York
February 24, 2010
Yours etc.,
_______________________________________
10
ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF QUEENS ) ss.:
REN MYATT, ESQ., an attorney-at-law duly admitted to practice before the Courts of
the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:
I am associated with THE LAW OFFICE OF REN MYATT, the attorney of record for
the Plaintiff, ROBERT FRANCE.
I have read the annexed COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are
true based upon information and belief. My belief, as to those matters herein not stated upon
knowledge, is based on facts, records, and other pertinent information contained in the client
files kept by The Law Office of Ren Myatt.
I make this verification instead of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs reside at the address
indicated below:
400 Marguerite Avenue
South Floral Park, New York, 11011
which is outside of the County where your affiants office is located.
Dated: Hollis, New York
February 24, 2010
___________________________
REN MYATT, ESQ.
11
12