DON 101212008 I

.
I t ,

Bae2.V

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

County of Queens complaint in this action and to serve a YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED t copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is n th this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this 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 herein.
'

-' @'-

Dated: September 29,2008 JOSEPH T. MULLEN, JR. & ASSOCIATES

L

By:

David Friedman

$3 d&

Defendants' Address:

Attorneys for Plaintiff 30 Vesey Street, 15* Floor New York, New York 10007 (212) 766-1 177

250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC c/o Peter Moore Associates Attn: Jonathan Morse 515 Canal Street New York, New York 10013
FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC 106 East 19" Street New York, New York 10009

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 14

The nature of this action is set forth in the Complaint.

The relief sought is set forth in Complaint. Upon your failure to appear, judgment will be taken against you by default for a monetary amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts, and the costs of this action.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 2 of 14

P1aintiff,

- against 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC and FOUNDATIONS GROUP INC.,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, by his attorney, JOSEPH T. MULLEN, JR. & ASSOCIATES, respectfully shows to the Court and alleges upon information and belief as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON

1.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff was and still is a resident of the County

of Queens, Ct and State of New York, iy

2.
At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

was and still is a limited liability corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC.,

was and still is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
4.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

owned the premises located at 250 Bowery, in the County of New York, City and State of New York (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises").

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 3 of 14

5.

On or about June 19,2007, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC, operated

the subject premises.

6.

On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

maintained the subject premises.

7.

On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

managed the subject premises.

8.

On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

supervised the subject premises. 9. On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC,

inspected the subject premises.

10.

Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, 250

BOWERY PROJECT LLC, owned, operated, maintained, controlled, supervised, inspected and
repaired the subject premises.

11.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, 250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC entered into an

agreement with FOUNDATIONS GROUP INC to perform construction work at the aforementioned premises.
12.

Upon information and belief, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC,was

the general contractor for construction taking place at 250 Bowery, New York, New York

13.

Upon information and belief, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC,

supervised all construction work taking place at the subject premises.

14.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP INC,

operated the premises located at 250 Bowery, in the County of New York, Ct and State of New iy

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 4 of 14

York (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises"), and w s required to keep same in good a repair. 15. On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC,

maintained the subject premises and was required to keep same in good repair.

On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, NC,managed the subject
premises, and was required to keep same in good repair.
16.

On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC,

supervised the subject premises, and was required to keep same in good repair. 17. On or about June 19, 2007, the defendant, FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC,

inspected the subject premises, and was required to keep same in good repair.

18.

Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,

FOUNDATIONS GROUP, INC, operated, managed, maintained, controlled, supervised, inspected

and repaired the subject premises.

19.

On or about June 19, 2007, there existed a dangerous and defective condition at the

subject premises.
20.

On or about June 19,2007, plaintiff was caused to be struck by a unsecured falling n

rock or concrete and sustain serious personal injuries as a direct result of the hazardous condition located at the subject premises.
21.

Upon into and belief, the rock or concrete was pusheddropped onto plaintiff by a

backhoe.

22.

The defendants had been responsible through their agents, servants, licensees andor

employees for creating andor construction andor not taking the appropriate steps to secure andor not curing the dangerous condition at the construction site.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 5 of 14

23.

The defendants, through their agents, servants, licensees m d o r employees thereof,

had notice of the unsecured, defective, hazardous and dangerous condition at the subject premises.

24.

The defendants had suficient time and notice to correct said dangerous and

defective conditions at the subject premises.

25.

The defendants had sufficient time and notice to correct said dangerous and

defective condition, but neglected to do so, resulting in plaintiffs injuries.

26.

The said occurrence which resulted in injuries to plaintiff was by reason of the

negligence of the defendants in the ownership, operation, creation, control, inspection, design, construction, maintenance and repair of the subject premises and construction site.

27.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained serious personal injuries, pain,

disability and medical expenses, loss of earnings capacity and capability, emotional distress and Will, in the future, incur further pain, disability, medical expenses and loss of earnings capacity and capability.
28.

The defendants had notice and knowledge of the aforesaid dangerous and

defective conditions, but failed to remedy it. 29. The plaintiff was free from culpable conduct and comparative negligence in the

occurrence at the above time and place. 30. That the limitations set forth in Article 16 of the CPLR are not applicable to this

action in that one or more of the exceptions enumerated in CPLR 1600-1603 apply. 3 1. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, has sustained

damages in a monetary amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 6 of 14

32.

Plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, repeats and realleges each and every

allegation of paragraphs 1 through 3 1 with the same force and effect as though same were fully set forth at length herein.
33.

That the aforesaid occurrence and resultant injuries to plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-

RENDON, were caused wholly and solely by reason of the carelessness, recklessness and
negligence of the defendants, their agent, servant and/or employees, in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, supervision and control of the aforesaid premises, more particularly the unsecured rock where constmctiodrenovation was taking place thereat, in causing, permitting
and/or allowing the unsecured rock to be unloadedtransported or otherwise moved without

providing the necessary equipment required for safe transport of same; in causing, permitting and/or allowing said dangerous and defective unsecured rock where constructiodrevolution was taking place to become and remain in a defective, faulty, dangerous, hazardous and otherwise trap-like condition thereat; in failing to provide the necessary equipment andor hoist for transport of unsecured rock; in failing to warn the plaintiff herein of the dangers existing thereat; in failing to provide the plaintiff herein with proper safety equipment and devices and a safe place to work in violation of certain sections of the Labor Law, the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals, and the rules and regulations of OSHA; in failing to provide proper safety equipment and devices to perform his job duties; in failing to provide adequately for the safety of persons lawfully upon said premises where constructiodrenovation was taking place, more particularly the plaintiff herein; in failing to take any and all reasonable precautions to safeguard against this occurrence; in failing to provide to the plaintiff proper safety devices to help avoid this occurrence; in failing to correctly and/or properly manage, supervise andor control said premises and construction area; in that the defendant, its agents, servants andor employees created said dangerous and hazardous conditions;

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 7 of 14

in that they knew or should have known of said dangerous and hazardous condition at the job site in view of the fact that the same had existed for some time prior to the occurrence herein; in improperly relegating the non-delegable duty to maintain that the site was safe for employees working there; in failing to provide proper safety devices to individuals transporting construction materials while doing constructionhenovation work at the defendants premises; in allowing the plaintiff to be struck by a falling object, to wit; the unsecured falling beam; in failing to provide plaintiff wt the proper protection to prevent andor safeguard against objects falling fiom a height ih sufficient to cause injury; in allowing all of the foregoing to exist with actual and constructive notice; and failed to exercise reasonable care and prudence in the premises; further, the defendants violated section 240(1) of the Labor Law of the State of New York and all without any fault or lack of care on the part of the plaintiff herein contributing thereto.

34.

By reason of the foregoing, defendants, their agents, servants employees andor

contractors violated section 240 (1) of the Labor Law of the State of New York.

35.

That the limitations set forth in Article 16 of the CPLR are not applicable to this

action in that one or more of the exceptions enumerated in CPLR 1600-1603 apply. 36. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, has

sustained damages in a monetary amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower

courts.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON

37.

Plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, repeats and realleges each and every

allegation of paragraphs 1 through 36 with the same force and effect as though same were fully set forth at length herein.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 8 of 14

38.

Defendants, their agents, servants, employees andor contractors failed to provide

ih the plaintiff, at the place where he was working, wt reasonable and adequate protection to his
life, health and safety. 39. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors supervised the

area where the plaintiff was working at the time and place of the occurrence.

40.

Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors controlled the

area where the plaintiff was working at the time and place of the occurrence.
41,

Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors failed to provide

ih plaintiff wt safe place to traverse and/or safety equipment with which to work.
42.

By reason of the foregoing, defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or

contractors failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work.

43.

By reason of the foregoing, defendants, their agents, servants, employees andor

contractors violated Labor Law 6 200 of the State of New York in that they did not provide the plaintiff wt a safe place to work. ih

44.

That the limitations set forth in Article 16 of the CPLR are not applicable to this

action in that one or more of the exceptions enumerated in CPLR 1600-1603 apply.
45.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, has sustained

damages in a monetary amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON

46.
Plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and

every allegation of paragraph 1 through 45 with the same force and effect as through same were fully set forth at length herein.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 9 of 14

47.

That the aforesaid occurrence and resultant injuries to plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-

RENDON, were caused wholly and solely by reason of the carelessness, recklessness and
negligence of the defendants, its agent, servant an&or employees, in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, supervision and control of the aforesaid premises, more particularly the unsecured rock where constructionhenovation was taking place thereat in causing, permitting, allowing the unsecured rock to be unloaded transported or otherwise moved where construction
was taking place without providing the necessary equipment required for safe transport of same; in

causing, permitting and/or allowing said dangerous and defective unsecured rock where constructionhenovation was taking place to become and remain in a defective, faulty, dangerous, hazardous and otherwise trap-like condition thereat; in failing to provide the necessary equipment mdor hoist for transport of unsecured rock; in failing to warn the plaintiff herein of the dangers existing thereat; in failing to provide the plaintiff herein with proper safety equipment and devices and a safe place to work in violation of certain sections of the Labor Law, the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals, and the rules and regulations of OSHA; in failing to provide proper safety equipment and devices to perform his job duties; in failing to provide adequately for the safety of persons lawfully upon said premises, more particularly the plaintiff herein; in failing to take any and all reasonable precautions to safeguard against this occurrence; in failing to provide to the plaintiff proper safety devices to help avoid this occurrence; in failing to correctly andor properly manage, supervise and/or control said premises and construction area; in that the defendant, its agents, servants andor employees created said dangerous and hazardous conditions; in that they knew or should have known of said dangerous and hazardous condition at the job site in view of the fact that the same had existed for some time prior to the occurrence herein; in improperly relegating the nondelegable duty to maintain that the site was safe for employees working there; in failing to provide

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 10 of 14

proper safety devices to individuals transporting construction materials while doing construction work at the defendants premises; in allowing all of the foregoing to exist with actual and constructive notice; and f ~ l e to exercise reasonable care and prudence in the premises; further, the d defendants violated section 241(6) of the Labor Law of the State of New York and Title 12 of the NYCRR, Industrial Code of the State of New York Subchapter A, Part 23, Subpart 23-1, sections

23-1.5,23-1.15,23-1.33,23-1.7,23-1.8(~), 23-6.1,23-6.2,23-6.3,23-8.1,23-9.1,23-9.4,23-9.5. 48. By reason of the foregoing, defendants, their agents, servants, employees andor

contractors violated Labor Law 3 241(6) of the State of New York.

49.

That the limitations set forth in hticle 16 of the CPLR are not applicable to this

action in that one or more of the exceptions enumerated in CPLR 1600-1603 apply.
50.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has sustained damages in a monetary amount,

which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, demands judgment against the

defendants, who are jointly and severally liable, on the First Cause of Action on behalf of plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, in an amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower
Courts; on the Second Cause of Action on behalf of plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, in an

amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts; on the Third Cause of Action on behalf of plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON, in an amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts; on the Fourth Cause of Action on behalf of plaintiff, VICTOR BAEZ

RENDON, in an amount, which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts; together with
the costs and disbursements of this action.

Dated: New York, New York July 29,2008

Yours, etc.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 11 of 14

JOSEPH T. MULLEN, JR. & ASSOCIATES

By: David Friedman Attorneys for Plaintiff 30 Vesey Street, 15* Floor New York, New York 10007 (2 12) 766-1177

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 12 of 14

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ss:

The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, states, that afirmant is the attorney for the plaintiff, that affirmant has read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to affirmant's knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters affirmant believes it to be true. That the reason why this verification is made by affirmant and not by the plaintiff is because the plaintiff is not within New York County where the attorneys maintain their offices; and that the source of affirmant's knowledge, and the grounds of belief as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief are correspondence and investigations which have been made concerning the subject matter of this action, and which are in the possession of the said attorneys. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of Perjury. Dated: New York, New York July 29,2008

& J k *
DAVID FRIEDMAN

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 13 of 14

Index No.

Year

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O N COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Q,

' '=;"

e-* ?%

VICTOR BAEZ-RENDON,

,"
Plaintiff,

".r'.

- against -

250 BOWERY PROJECT LLC and FO1 NDATIONS GROUP, INC.,

F\LED
068 Q% I!!@
I

Defendants. SUMMONS and COMPLAINT

e&GE
Ic .

*.

".k- 9

_ *

I *

V.'

JOSEPH T. MULLEN, JR. & ASSOCIATlk Attorneysfor Plaintif 30 Vesey Street, 15* Floor New York, New York 10007 (212) 766-1177

'*

To:
Attorney(,)for

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22 N. Y.C.R.R. 6130-I.la

I hereby certify that pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 6 130-1.1a, the foregoing Summons and Amended Complaint is not frivolous nor frivolously presented.
Dated: July 29,2008

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 14 of 14