FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/13/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/13/2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/13/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/13/ of 17

2 To: George A. Gomes, Mary Moore Defendants 131 East 81st Street New York, NY East 81st Street Owners Corp. Defendant c/o Pressman, Bauman & Weiss 630 Third Avenue New York, NY New Bedford Management Corp. Defendant 210 EAST 23RD ST 4TH FLR NEW YORK, NEW YORK, BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant 1 State Street New York, NY of 17

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x ALKMINI ANASTASIADOU, Plaintiff, Index no. VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- GEORGE A. GOMES, MARY MOORE, 131 EAST 81st OWNERS CORP., NEW BEDFORD MANAGEMENT CORP. and BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants x PLAINTIFF, through her counsel Gregory A. Sioris, Esq., complains of the defendants as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This suit arises from water leaking into the plaintiff's apartment that occurred on February 12, The water leakage, according to a report from the engineering firm of Thornton Tomasetti occurred due to the failure of a heating coil in the apartment directly above plaintiff's, at the time owned or controlled by defendants George A. Gomes (Gomes) and Mary Moore (Moore). A water leak that caused extensive damage to plaintiff's apartment occurred from the same defendants' apartment on February 14, 2015 with these defendants, the defendant cooperative apartment corporation and its managing agent failing to enact remedial measures in order to prevent a future leak from occurring. 1 3 of 17

4 THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT 2. Plaintiff Alkmini Anastasiadou, M.D. (plaintiff) owns a full floor apartment on the tenth floor in the cooperative apartment building located 131 East 81st Street, Manhattan. 3. Defendants Gomes and Moore are individuals and upon information and belief are the owners and/or exclusive occupants of a full floor apartment located on the eleventh floor in the building located at 131 East 81st Street, Manhattan. 4. Defendant 131 East 81st Street Owners Corp. (Owners Corp.) is a New York cooperative corporation, which owns the underlying realty and building located at 131 East 81st Street, Manhattan, in which the apartments of plaintiff, Gomes and Moore are located. 5. Defendant New Bedford Management Corp. (New Bedford) at all times as concerns this complaint is Owners Corp.'s managing agent, providing administrative and management services as regards the ongoing operation of the building. 6. Defendant Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers Standard) is a Florida corporation headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, which is licensed by the New York State Department of Financial Services to sell property and casualty insurance in New York State. Plaintiff has a casualty policy with Bankers Standard insuring her apartment pursuant to a policy dated May 19, 2015 which as of the dates recited herein was in full force and effect with regard to the dates recited in this complaint. 2 4 of 17

5 FACTS OF THE ACTION 7. On or about February 14, 2015 the apartment of Gomes and Moore flooded, which caused substantial water leakage into the plaintiff's apartment resulting in substantial damage to it. 8. Plaintiff could not move into her apartment in February 2015, which she purchased in October 2014 and had been renovating since its purchase. The damage caused by the flood to the entire apartment forced plaintiff to continue making repairs for an additional three months and she finally moved into the unit in May 2015, after having spent considerable sums to renovate its walls, ceilings and floors, in addition to purchasing new fixtures and furnishings to outfit the unit. Plaintiff also had to pay maintenance for three months at the defendant cooperative despite not being able to live in her unit. 9. Based on the flooding of February 14, 2015 plaintiff filed a claim with the defendants' insurer Chubb for indemnification, based upon the fact that the flooding was an insurable "occurrence" as defined in their policy. Chubb reimbursed plaintiff $30, in partial payment for her damages. 10. Defendants Owners Corp. and Bedford have actual knowledge of the 2015 flood. Upon information and belief these defendants failed to inspect Gomes and Moore's apartment after the flood to ascertain its cause or causes. These two defendants failed to 3 5 of 17

6 find the cause of the leakage and did not provide remedial measures in order to reasonably assure that no further flooding or water leakage emanates from the eleventh floor apartment, especially during the winter months. 11. On February 12, 2016 Gomes and Moore's apartment flooded again with a steady stream of water leaking into the plaintiff's apartment and to several apartments below hers, causing significant damage to plaintiff's ceilings, walls, floors, moldings, fixtures, furnishings and personal items. 12. Plaintiff filed a claim with Bankers Standard for indemnity based on her apartment owner's policy no , but Bankers Standard refuses to indemnify plaintiff for her losses and ongoing losses including the construction work that is necessary to restore her apartment to its pre-flood condition. 13. By letter dated April 14, 2016 Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, the insurer for Gomes and Moore, denied plaintiff's claim for indemnity, claiming "The incident was caused by a weather event beyond our insured's control". 14. At plaintiff's request, the 2016 flood caused defendant Owners Corp. to hire the engineering firm of Thornton Tomasetti (Thornton) to inspect and determine the cause of the February 2016 flood in Gomes and Moore's apartment. Per Thornton's report dated June 2, 2016 as authored by R. Panikiewsky, P.E., the cause of the flood was "the hot water heating coil in the south PTAC [Packaged 4 6 of 17

7 Terminal Air Conditioners] failed. The coil burst and water flooded the premises". 15. Thornton's report states that "Two of the copper tube return bends on the coil were observed to be failed" and contains photographs identifying the two failed heating coils. The report also notes that there is an outdoor air vent leading to the PTAC unit in Gomes and Moore's apartment which was open and which Owners Corp. had not been maintained, having failed to properly caulk the vent to prevent cold air from entering into the Gomes/Moore apartment on that February 2016 date when the coils burst. According to Thornton, "There are breaches in the air tight seal which are allowing outside air to infiltrate. On a cold day, this condition could result in sub-freezing temperature outside air passing over the heating coil return bends". 16. Thornton's engineer also found that Gomes and Moore, Owners Corp. and/or New Bedford left the outdoor air vent open in the Gomes/Moore apartment, "meaning that on a very cold day, subfreezing temperature air would have been introduced into the unit [belonging to Gomes/Moore]". The report also states that in the Gomes/Moore apartment "the thermostat's were reported to have been set back to a lower set point temperature and whereby the Superintendent reportedly advised that the apartment was cold when he entered to investigate and address the flood event [of February 2016]". The superintendent "remembers the isolation valves on the 5 7 of 17

8 hot water supply and return piping from the heating coil being in the open position. He closed all service isolation valves" apparently to isolate and stop further water leakage. 17. Thornton's report attaches copies of bills from Hi-Tech Heating Corp., dated April 11 and 21, The bill dated April 11, 2016 states Hi-Tech "FOUND LARGE AIR DRAFT COMING FROM THE BRICK WORK"; "AIR IS FLOWING FROM AROUND THE OUTSIDE SLEEVE OF THE A/AC AND AROUND WALL OUTLET"; "INSIDE WALL NEEDS TO BE INSULATED AND AROUND A/AC UNIT". New Bedford was billed $ for this service. 18. The Hi-Tech bill dated April 21, 2016 states "REASON FOR VISIT: SEAL BRICK WORK WEEP HOLES IN APARTMENT #11"; "SEALED WEEP HOLES IN BRICK ABOVE THE UNIT"; "SEALED HOLES UNDER THE UNIT ON EACH SIDE"; "UPON COMPLETION, PERFORMED DRAFT TEST AND FOUND LITTLE TO NONE". New Bedford was billed $ for this work. 19. The water leakage and resulting damage to plaintiff's apartment, fixtures, furnishing and personal items is an "occurrence" as defined in her policy with Bankers Standard at 12. Despite the express language of the policy promising to provide indemnity for such an "occurrence" Bankers Standard refuses to honor its commitments under the policy, leaving plaintiff with no recourse other than to file suit to vindicate her rights. 6 8 of 17

9 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendants Gomes and Moore) 20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs Defendants Gomes and Moore were obliged but failed to maintain their PTAC or alternatively failed to keep its outdoor air vent or water pipes closed on or about February 12, 2016 although they knew or should have known that the air temperature in Manhattan during February is very likely to be at sub-freezing temperatures. By failing to act with reasonable care, these defendants heightened the risk of a flood and the damages resulting from a flood to their downstairs neighbors since they were absent from their unit on February 12, 2016 and failed to take reasonable measures to keep the unit warm so that the water in the pipes contained within the unit and the PTAC would not freeze and burst. Moreover, having caused a flood in plaintiff's unit in February 2015 these defendants were very well aware of the heightened risk of neglecting to maintain their PTAC and the need to keep the outside air vent closed so that the pipes within the unit and the PTAC are not be subject to sub-freezing temperatures. 22. Defendants Gomes and Moore owe plaintiff a duty of care with regard to their PTAC and its operation since it is foreseeable that water leaking into the plaintiff's unit will cause damage. By failing to maintain the PTAC, the thermostat that controls it and/or by keeping the outside air vent open, the failure of these 7 9 of 17

10 defendants to act with reasonable care is the direct and/or proximate cause of the flood or who otherwise contributed to the flood occurring, the flood and its foreseeable effects caused and is causing plaintiff direct and proximate damages well above the jurisdictional monetary threshold of this Court. 23. Plaintiff seeks damages from Gomes and Moore to the extent of restoring the damage that has resulted to her apartment's ceilings, walls, floors, fixtures, furnishings and personal items and reasonable compensation for the time plaintiff has had to lose and is losing from her work as a physician in order to vindicate her rights with regard to her losses as defined herein. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendant Owners Corp.) 24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs Defendant Owners Corp. is in material breach of 2 of the proprietary lease dated October 23, 2014 executed between it and plaintiff. Pursuant to express terms of the proprietary lease at 18 plaintiff is charged with the maintenance and repair of her unit and items contained therein and Owners Corp. is charged with maintaining the building and its walls, structures and those fixtures connected to or appurtenant to the walls and structures as per the lease and also pursuant to the Building Code of the City of New York of 17

11 26. In this instance Owners Corp. failed to inspect and maintain the masonry and outside air vent located appurtenant to unit owned by Gomes and Moore after the flood of February Owners Corp. through its directors and officers had actual knowledge and/or constructive notice that conditions in or around the unit on the eleventh floor had caused a major flood. Instead of upholding its contractual duty under the proprietary lease to investigate and correct any conditions which caused or contributed to the flood, Owners Corp. took no action, in major and material breach of its repair obligations recited in the proprietary lease. 27. Proof of Owners Corp. materially breaching the proprietary lease in 2015 is that it realized the breach only after the second flood occurred in February 2016 when it hired Hi-Tech Cooling Corp. to investigate and repair the walls outside the apartment on the eleventh floor in order to stop the draft by sealing holes in the weep holes and around the PTAC on the eleventh floor. 28. As a result of Owners Corp.'s material breach of the lease, which resulted in the conditions which caused or contributed to the floods that occurred in 2015 and 2016, plaintiff has been damaged, the leakage having caused and continuing to cause damages to her ceilings, walls, floors, fixtures, furnishings and personal items which has resulted in additional consequential and incidental damages and further costs as connected to this material breach, with the value of such damages exceeding the 9 11 of 17

12 jurisdictional threshold of this Court which plaintiff seeks to recover with the amount to be determined prior to trial. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendant Owners Corp.) 29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs Defendant Owners Corp. owes plaintiff a duty of care with regard to keeping her apartment, its fixtures, furnishings and personal items in a safe and habitable state. Although having actual knowledge of the flood in 2015, defendant failed to uphold its duty of care to the plaintiff to take all reasonable measures to assure that a second flood would not occur. 31. Defendant breached its duty of care to plaintiff by directly and proximately failing to maintain and repair the walls, fixtures, PTAC, pipes and other items in the eleventh floor unit it knew had caused a flood in 2015 so as to minimize to the extent reasonably possible the chance of a second flood damaging the plaintiff's apartment. Owners Corp. was under a heightened duty of care after its directors and officers had knowledge of the 2015 flood and the damage that it cause plaintiff but failed to do anything to correct the conditions in and around the apartment of Gomes and Moore which caused it. 32. As a result of the Owners Corp.'s negligence plaintiff seeks all of the costs that have to be incurred in order to restore her of 17

13 apartment, its fixtures, furnishings and personal possessions into the state that they were in prior to the second flood occurring. Although plaintiff cannot accurately state the costs to restore her apartment because of their ongoing nature, they will be disclosed prior to trial, but they do exceed the jurisdictional threshold of the Court. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendant New Bedford) 33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs As the agent for Owners Corp. defendant New Bedford manages and administers the subject building, including its fixtures, machines and other items which Owners Corp. is required per the proprietary lease and the various laws and Codes to keep in good working order. Similar to Owners Corp., New Bedford owes plaintiff a duty of care with regard to keeping her apartment, its fixtures, furnishings and personal items in a safe and habitable state. Although New Bedford had actual knowledge of the flood in 2015, it failed to uphold its duty of care to the plaintiff to investigate and remedy the cause and/or causes of the flood in 2015 in order to prevent a second flood from occurring. 35. New Bedford breached its duty of care to plaintiff by directly and proximately failing to discharge its management and administrative duties after the 2015 flood, by neglecting to of 17

14 investigate, let alone maintain and repair the walls, fixtures, PTAC, pipes and other items in the eleventh floor unit in order to minimize to the extent reasonably possible a second flood from occurring and likely damaging plaintiff's apartment and the apartments below plaintiff. Similar to Owners Corp., New Bedford was under a heightened duty of care based on its knowledge of the 2015 flood and the damages that it cause plaintiff. 36. As a result of the New Bedford's negligence plaintiff seeks all of the costs that have to be incurred in order to restore her apartment, its fixtures, furnishings and personal possessions into the state that they were in prior to the second flood occurring. Although plaintiff cannot accurately state the costs to restore her apartment, they will be disclosed prior to trial, and exceed the jurisdictional threshold of the Court. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendant New Bedford) 37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs In the alternative, New Bedford materially breached its contractual obligations to plaintiff based on the fact that plaintiff, similar to the other cooperators, is a third party beneficiary of the management and administration agreement in place between it and Owners Corp. which agreement likely contains express and implied warranties made by New Bedford of 17

15 39. As a third party beneficiary, plaintiff has been damaged, and seeks the costs to repair and replace the damages to her ceilings, walls, floors, fixtures, furnishings and personal items with the value of such damages exceeding the jurisdictional threshold of this Court as will be proven at trial. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (against defendant Bankers Standard) 40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs Pursuant to the insurance and indemnity agreement between plaintiff and Bankers Standard, the latter is obligated to indemnify plaintiff for any damages resulting from any "occurrence" as defined in the parties insurance agreement. 42. The flood is an insuranble "occurrence" as per the definition of this term in the parties' insurance agreement. Proof thereof is Bankers Standard or one of its related or affiliated entities in the Chubb/Ace Group of insurance companies providing plaintiff with a partial indemnity for the damages caused to her apartment from the 2015 flood. 43. Defendant Bankers Standard refuses to indemnify plaintiff for the 2016 flood despite knowing that the damages resulting from the second flood are based on an "occurrence" as defined in the policy of 17

16 16 of 17

17 17 of 17