JUANITA WILSON v. GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al, 705679/2014, 22 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens County Jul. 2, 2015) (2024)

`

`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF QUEENS
`
`
`JUANITA WILSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`— against —
`
`
`
`GRACE EFZSCOPAL CHURCH JAWAICA SENEOR
`
`
`
`
`C“T_. ZENS HOUSNG DFVHTOPMENT FUND
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRORATON THF AM STAD MANAGEMENT
`
`
`T1
`
`
`
`
`COE?ORAT:ON and THE EPESCOPAR D OCESJ
`OF LONG ISLAND,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index NO: 705679/14
`D/Filed: 08/12/14
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________ X
`Plaintiff designates Queens County as the place of trial.
`
`
`
`
`The basis of venue is plain:i ‘ ’s residence. Plaintiff resides
`at
`95— 48 110th Street, Richmond Hill, NY 11419.
`
`
`To the above named Defendan:s:
`
`
`
`in this
`YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint
`action and to serve a copy of your answer or,
`if the complaint is
`not served with the summons,
`to serve a notice of appearance, on
`
`Plaintiff’s attorney with:n 20 days after the service 0::
`the
`
`
`summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after
`the service is complete i::
`the summons is not personally
`
`delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case o::
`your failure to appear or answer,
`judgment will be taken against
`
`you by default for the relie:: demanded in the complaint.
`
`DATED:
`
`New York, New York
`Augus: 12, 2014
`
`
`
`LAW OFFICES OF
`
`GLENN S. CAPLAN, P. C.
`Attgrneys f9r Plainthf
`
`V MOE NBA/KIRSCH
`
`
`
`OFFICE & POST OFFICE ADDRESS
`160 Broadway — 10th Floor
`New York, NY 10038
`(212) 406—2181
`
`

`

` Defendants’ Addresses:
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMA
`:CA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SENOR C T NS HOUSNG DEVELOPMENT
`FUND CORPORAJLON
`
`
`155— 24 90th Avenue
`Jamaica, NY ”437
`
`
`
`THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
`1975 Linden Boulevard, #408
`Elmont, NY 11003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE EPISCOPAL DLOCiSj Of LONG ISLAND
`1011 First Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`

`

`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF QUEENS
`————————————————————————————————————— X
`JUANITA WILSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`— against —
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR
`CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND
`
`CORPORATTON, THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT
`CORPORATION and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE
`OF LONG ISLAND,
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________ X
`
`Index No: 705679/14
`D/Filed: 08/12/14
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff by her attorney,
`
`the LAW OFFICES OF GLENN S.
`
`CAPLAN, P.C., alleges as and for her Verified Complaint, upon
`
`information and belief:
`
`1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA
`
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION,
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “GRACE CHURCH”) was a domestic
`
`religious corporation duly organized and existing under and by
`virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and duly licensed to
`
`do business in the State of New York.
`
`2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH was a domestic, not—
`
`for~profit corporation duly licensed to do business in the State
`
`of New York, and was doing business in New York on August 18,
`2011.
`
`3. That at all times hereina ter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG
`
`ISLAND,
`
`(hereina ter referred to as “DlOCESE”) was and still is a
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`corporation which promulgates the rules which govern all parishes
`in its association.
`
`4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, was and still is a
`
`corporation organized and existing pursuant to the Religious
`
`Corporations Law of the State of New York.
`
`5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, was and still is a
`
`religious organization operating in the State of New York.
`
`6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011, defendant THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
`
`(hereinafter referred to as "AMISTAD”) was a domestic corporation
`
`duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
`
`the State of New York, and duly licensed to do business in the
`
`State of New York.
`
`7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH, owned the premises
`
`identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 1, comprising of 155*02 through
`155~12 90‘h Avenue a/k/a 90~Ol Grace Court,
`in the County of
`
`Queens, City and State of New York.
`
`8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH, operated the
`
`aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH, maintained the
`
`aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH, managed the
`
`aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE CHURCH, controlled the
`
`aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, owned the premises
`v
`identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 1, comprising of 155—02 through
`155—12 90Ch Avenue a/k/a 90—01 Grace Court,
`in the County of
`
`Queens, City and State of New York.
`
`13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, operated the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, managed the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, maintained the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`16. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, controlled the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`1
`
`. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, owned the premises
`
`identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 1, comprising of 155-02 through
`155~12 90th Avenue a/k/a 90*01 Grace Court,
`in the County of
`
`Queens, City and State of New York.
`
`18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, operated the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`19. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, managed the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, maintained the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, controlled the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`22. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE
`
`CHURCH, hired the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to manage the aforementioned
`
`premises and property.
`
`23. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE
`
`CHURCH, contracted the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to manage the
`
`aforementioned premises and property.
`
`24. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE
`
`CHURCH,
`
`retained the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to manage the
`
`aforementioned premises and property.
`
`25. That on or about August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD
`
`was performing management services for the aforementioned
`
`premises and property.
`
`26. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on August
`
`18, 2011,
`
`a portion of the sidewalk on Parsons Boulevard,
`
`adjacent
`
`to the premises identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 1,
`
`comprising of 155~02 through 155~12 90m Avenue a/k/a 90~01 Grace
`
`

`

`Court,
`
`in the County of Queens, City and State of New York, was
`
`in a defective, raised, uneven and dangerous condition.
`
`27. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant GRACE CHURCH,
`
`had actual and/or constructive notice of the defective and
`
`dangerous condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or actually
`
`created said defective and dangerous condition.
`
`28. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant DIOCESE, had
`
`actual and/or constructive notice of the defective and dangerous
`
`condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or actually created said
`
`defective and dangerous condition.
`
`29. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant AMISTAD, had
`
`actual and/or constructive notice of the defective and dangerous
`
`condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or actually created said
`
`defective and dangerous condition.
`
`30. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011, plaintiff JUANITA WILSON, was lawfully
`
`traversing on the sidewalk on Parsons Boulevard, adjacent to the
`
`premises identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 1, comprising of 155-
`02 through 155~l2 90th Avenue a/k/a 90901 Grace Court,
`in the
`
`County of Queens, City and State of New York.
`
`31. That on or about August 18, 2011, while the plaintiff
`
`JUANITA WILSON, was lawfully traversing the aforesaid sidewalk,
`
`she sustained serious personal injuries when she was precipitated
`
`to the ground due to a defective and dangerous condition,
`
`to wit:
`
`a cracked, raised, and uneven sidewalk, causing a said area to be
`
`a tripping hazard,
`
`treacherous, and unsafe for pedestrians
`
`walking at that vicinity, and specifically this plaintiff.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`32. That at all times hereinafter mentioned,
`
`the defendants
`
`were required to provide all pedestrians,
`
`including the plaintiff
`
`JUANITA WILSON,
`do so.
`
`a safe condition to traverse upon and failed to
`
`33. That it was the duty of the defendants,
`
`their agents,
`
`servants and/or employees to maintain and keep said premises and
`
`sidewalk,
`
`in a safe and proper manner so as not to endang r the
`
`life and limbs of persons and to give due and timely notice or
`
`warning of the attendant peril or danger to all pedestrians,
`
`including specifically,
`
`the plaintiff JUANITA WILSON.
`
`34. That
`
`the defendants,
`
`its agents, servants and/or
`
`employees were negligent
`
`in causing, permitting, and allowing a
`
`dangerous condition,
`
`uneven sidewalk,
`
`to wit,
`
`a cracked, raised, deteriorated, and
`,
`s
`thereby consti uting a nuisance, danger, menace
`
`and hazard;
`
`in failing to provide a safe means for pedestrians to
`
`traverse to and from its park at
`
`the aforesaid location;
`
`in
`
`causing and/or allowing the sidewalk to become and remain in a
`
`dangerous condition;
`
`in actually creating a nuisance, danger,
`
`in failing to perform proper and adequate
`menace, and hazard;
`in causing and allowing said sidewalk to have a‘A
`
`inspections;
`
`defective condition;
`
`in failing to take proper action to remedy
`
`same despite both actual and constructive notice;
`
`in causing,
`
`permitting and allowing said sidewalk to be, become and remain in
`
`a dangerous and unsafe condition, resulting in a public hazard to
`
`those using the sidewalk and specifically to this plaintiff;
`
`in
`
`failing to warn of the aforesaid danger posed by the sidewalk;
`
`in
`
`failing to warn users of the sidewalk of the dangerous and
`
`deteriorated condition thereat, despite actual and constructive
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`in failing to post a sign or warning of said
`
`in failing to warn pedestrians of the danger
`dangerous condition;
`posed by the defective sidewalk; and defendants were otherwise
`
`careless and negligent in the premises; and in violating the
`
`rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes of GRACE CHURCH, all
`
` notice thereof;
`
`WILSON, has sustained damages in a sum that exceeds the monetary
`
`36. That the aforementioned and the injuries to the
`
`plaintiff JUANiTA WILSON resulting therefrom, were caused solely
`by the negligence of the defendants herein, and without any
`
`without any culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff,
`
`despite having actual notice of said condition. Plaintiff
`
`further alleges that said condition existed for such a long
`
`period of time that the defendants knew or should have known of
`
`the dangerous nature of the aforesaid location and should have
`corrected same.
`
`35. That as a result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff
`
`JUANITA WILSON, was injured, bruised and became sick, sore,
`
`lame
`
`and upon information and belief, permanently disabled, has
`
`suffered extreme physical pain; has required hospitalization and
`
`medical care and resultant expenses, and will the future be
`
`further obligated to undergo hospital and/or medical
`
`treatment
`
`and expenses for the injuries she sustained as a result of this
`accident.
`
`negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto.
`
`37. That this action falls within one of the exceptions
`
`contained in Section 1602 of the CPLR.
`
`38. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff JUANITA
`
`

`

`
`
`jurisdictional limits of any and all lower Courts which would
`
`otherwise have jurisdiction herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff JUAN"TA W"LSON demands judgment
`
`against defendants in an amount that exceeds the monetary
`
`
`jurisdictional limits of any and all lower Courts which would
`
`otherwise have jurisdiction herein,
`
`in an amount
`
`to be determined
`
`
`upon the trial of this action,
`
`together with interest, costs and
`
`disbursem*nts of this action.
`
`DATED:
`
`New York, New York
`August 12, 2014
`
`LAW<XGTCESOF
`
`GLENN S. CAPLAN, P.C.
`AttorneysgforzPlaintifif
`
`ii
`\
`z ,
`
`v;
`‘
`
`
`MELZNDAfiKIRSCH
`
`OFFICE & POST OFFICE ADDRESS
`
`160 Broadway — 10th Floor
`New York, NY 10038
`(212) 406—2181
`
`

`

`
`ATTORNEY ' S AFFIRMATION
`
`
`MELZNDA KIRSCH,
`
`the undersigned, an attorney admitted to
`
`practice in the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the
`
`following under penalty of perjury pursuant
`
`to CPLR 2106:
`
`Deponent is the attorney of record for the plainti:
`
`ff herein.
`
`That deponent has read the foregoing Complaint and
`
`knows the
`
`contents thereof;
`
`that same is true to deponent's own knowledge,
`
`except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged OH
`
`information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent
`
`believes it to be true.
`
`Deponent further says that the reason this Verification is
`
`
`made by deponen: and not by plaintiff,
`
`
`is that plaintiff does not
`
`reside or maintain an office in the County where this deponent
`
`maintains her office.
`
`
`
`The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not
`
`stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Records, reports
`
`and documentation supplied by plaintiff.
`
`
`DATED:
`
`New York, New York
`August 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` -_
`
`rig!
`;
`hwy/Mei,
`Year: 2014
`tfi/m?/;
`Lndex No:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNi'Y Oh QULLNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUAN"TA W"LSOW,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`—
`— against
`
`
`
`
`
`GRACE LP SCOPA'L CHJRCH JAMAICA SLN OR
`
`
`
`CITIZENS HOUSING DL'VL‘LOPMENT b'JND
`
`
`CORPORATLON,
`T‘T“: A STAD MANAGLMENT
`
`CORPORATION and THE LPISCOPAL DIOCESE
`OF LONG ISLAND,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`LAW OFFICES CIF
`GLENN S. CAPLAN, P.l3.
`ATTEIRNEY FDR PLAINTIFF
`160 BROADWAY - 10TH FLOUR
`NEW YORK, NY 10038
`
`
`
`PHDNE(21Z)4C|6'Z1B1
`FAX (21 2) 732 - 1425
`
`

`

`Page 1 of 2
`
`mkcaelan@hotmail.com
`
`From:
`Date:
`To:
`Subject:
`
`"Glenn S. Caplan" <GCaplan@CaplanLawNY.com>
`Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:21 AM
`"Melinda" <mkcaplan@hotmailicom>
`Fwd: NYSCEF Alert: Queens — Tort - <SUMMONS + COMPLAINT> 705679/2014 (JUANITA WILSON - v, - GRACE
`EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al)
`
`Glenn Caplan
`LA W OFFICES OF
`
`GLENN S. CAP/LAN, PC
`160 Broadway - 10th Fl.
`New York, NY 10038
`P - (212) 406-2181
`F - (212) 732—1425
`Web: Ca alanLawNYeom
`
`Sent From GSC‘s iPhone 5
`
`Begin forwarded message:
`
`From: efilci’rfinvcourts,gox;
`Date: August 13, 2014, 9:16:19 AM EDT
`To: (liCaplan<’z’ii‘CQp_lanl:aurr’NYmufl
`Subject: NYSCEF Alert: Queens - Tort - <SUMMONS + COMPLAINT> 705679/2014 (JUANITA
`WILSON - V. - GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
`DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al)
`
`
`
`Queens County Supreme Court
`ASSIGNMENT OF INDEX NUMBER
`This is an AUTOMATED NOTICE.
`On 08/12/2014, at 4:47:56 PM, the ease commenced by the following electronic filing:
`
`Document number:
`
`1
`
`Document type: SUMMONS + COMPLAINT
`Caption: JUANITA WILSON - v. - GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS
`HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al
`
`was assigned the following index number:
`
`Index Number: 705679/2014
`
`Date of Filing: 08/12/2014
`
`Filing User Information
`
`8/18/2014
`
`

`

`User Name: GLENN CAPLAN
`Phone Number:
`Fax Number:
`
`Email Service Address: GszlanQiECananLawNYxom
`Work Address: 160 BROADWAY FL 10TH, NEW YORK, NY, 10038
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Payment Information
`
`Amount of payment: $210
`Date of payment: 08/12/2014
`Payment method: VISA/MC
`Authorization code: 02761G
`
`Payment Comments:
`
`E-mail Service Notifications Sent
`
`Name
`
`GLENN CAPLAN
`
`Email Address
`
`(3 (7 up i EliiftIT’C aplan Law N Y o co m
`
`Note: Service ofinitiating documents and the "Notice of Availability Regarding Electronic Filing" (in consensu
`cases) or the "Notice of Commencement of Mandatory E—Filed Case" (in mandatory cases) must be made in har
`copy (unless the party agrees to accept service by electronic means). These forms can be found on the NYSCEF
`under the "Forms" menu. The served copies also must bear the assigned Index Number and the date of filing (C
`305).
`
`Documents Filed
`
`(To view a document, click the document type link)
`Doc #
`Document Type
`S U M MGNS "i" COM PLAl NT
`
`l
`
`Description
`
`Motion #
`
`Received Dai
`08/12/2014
`
`THIS E—Il/MIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) AND FOR THE P URP
`OF THE NEW YORK STA TE COURTS ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM IF YOU ARE NEITHER THE INTEN
`RECIPIENT NOR A PERSON DESIGNA TED TO RECEIVE MESSAGES ON BEHALF OF THE INTENDED
`RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIA TELY. THANK YOU.
`
`8/18/2014
`
`

`

`x“
`
` Ham‘W'T‘N
`
`at NYSCEF — Queens County Supreme Court
`{mi
`.
`.
`.
`y; Confirmation Notice
`
`
`
`This is an automated response for Supreme Court / Court of Claims cases. The NYSCEF site has
`received your electronically filed document(s) for:
`
`JUANITA WILSON - v. - GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
`DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al
`
`Index Number NOT assigned
`
`DocUments Received
`
`Doc #
`1
`
`Document Type
`SUMMONS + COMPLAINT
`
`Motion #
`
`Date Received
`08/12/2014 04:47 PM
`
`Filing User
`
`Name:
`
`GLENN SCOTT CAPLAN
`
`Phone
`Fax #:
`
`E—mail Address:
`Work Address:
`
`GCaplan@CaplanLawNY.com
`160 BROADWAY FL 10TH
`NEW YORK, NY 10038
`
`E—mail Notifications
`
`An e—mail notification regarding this tiling has been sent to the following address(es) on
`08/12/2014 04:47 PM:
`
`CAPLAN, GLENN SCOTT - GCapIan@CaplanLawNY.com
`
`NOTE: If submitting a working copy of this filing to the court, you must include
`as a notification page firmly affixed thereto a copy of this Confirmation Notice.
`
`W A
`
`udrey I. Pheffer, Queens County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court - apheffer@nycourts.gov
`Phone: 718-298-0173, 718-298—0601 Website: https://www.nycourts.gov/COURTS/t tjd/queensclerkW
`
`NYSCEF Resource Center - EFile@nycourts.gov
`Phone: (646) 386—8033
`Fax: (212) 401-9146 Website: www.nycourts.gov/efile
`
`Page 1 of I
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF QUEENS
`_____________________________________ X
`
`JUANITA WILSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against —
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR
`CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND
`
`CORPORATION, THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT
`CORPORATION, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE
`OF LONG ISLAND and GRACE EPISCOPAL
`
`Index NO: 705679/14
`D/Filed: 08/12/14
`
`CHURCH,
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________ X
`
`Plaintiff designates Queens County as the place of trial.
`The basis of venue is plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff resides
`at 95—48 110th Street, Richmond Hill, NY 11419.
`
`To the above named Defendants:
`
`in this
`YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint
`action and to serve a copy of your answer or,
`if the complaint is
`not served with the summons,
`to serve a notice of appearance, on
`Plaintiff’s attorney within 20 days after the service of the
`summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after
`the service is complete if the 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
`July 2, 2015
`
`LAW OFFICES OF
`
`GLENN S. CAPLAN, P.C.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`By:
`
`MELINDA KIRSCH
`
`OFFICE & POST OFFICE ADDRESS
`
`160 Broadway — 10th Floor
`New York, NY 10038
`(212) 406—2181
`
`

`

`Defendants’ Addresses:
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
`FUND CORPORATION
`
`THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
`
`1975 Linden Boulevard, #408
`Elmont, NY 11003
`
`THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND
`1011 First Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10022
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
`155—24 90th Avenue
`Jamaica, NY 11432
`
`

`

`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF QUEENS
`_____________________________________ X
`
`JUANITA WILSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against -
`
`GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA SENIOR
`CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND
`
`CORPORATION, THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT
`CORPORATION, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE
`OF LONG ISLAND and GRACE EPISCOPAL
`
`CHURCH,
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________ X
`
`Index NO: 705679/14
`D/Filed: 08/12/14
`
`AMENDED
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff by her attorney,
`
`the LAW OFFICES OF GLENN S.
`
`CAPLAN, P.C., alleges as and for her Verified Complaint, upon
`
`information and belief:
`
`1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH JAMAICA
`
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION,
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING”)
`
`was a domestic religious corporation duly organized and existing
`
`under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and
`
`duly licensed to do business in the State of New York.
`
`2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
`
`was a domestic, not—for—profit corporation duly licensed to do
`
`business in the State of New York, and was doing business in New
`
`York on August 18, 2011.
`
`3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG
`
`ISLAND,
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “DIOCESE”) was and still is a
`
`

`

`corporation which promulgates the rules which govern all parishes
`
`in its association.
`
`4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, was and still is a
`
`corporation organized and existing pursuant to the Religious
`
`Corporations Law of the State of New York.
`
`5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, was and still is a
`
`religious organization operating in the State of New York.
`
`6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011, defendant THE AMISTAD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
`
`(hereinafter referred to as "AMISTAD") was a domestic corporation
`
`duly organized and existing under and by Virtue of the laws of
`
`the State of New York, and duly licensed to do business in the
`
`State of New York.
`
`7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, was and
`
`still is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the
`
`Religious Corporations Law of the State of New York.
`
`8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, was and
`
`still is a religious organization operating in the State of New
`
`York.
`
`9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH was and
`
`still is a parish governed by the defendant DIOCESE.
`
`10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`

`

`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH was and
`
`still is a parish under the authority of defendant DIOCESE.
`
`11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING,
`
`owned the premises identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 11,
`
`including the westerly side of Parsons Boulevard,
`
`located
`
`approximately 125 feet north from its intersection with Jamaica
`
`Avenue, and approximately 80 feet south from its intersection
`
`with 90th Avenue,
`
`including the graveyard of Grace Episcopal
`
`Church, Jamaica, New York.
`
`12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING,
`
`operated the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING,
`
`maintained the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks
`
`thereat.
`
`14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING,
`
`managed the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING,
`
`controlled the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks
`
`thereat.
`
`16. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, owned the premises
`
`identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 11,
`
`including the westerly side
`
`of Parsons Boulevard,
`
`located approximately 125 feet north from
`
`3
`
`

`

`its intersection with Jamaica Avenue, and approximately 80 feet
`
`south from its intersection with 90th Avenue, and the graveyard
`
`of Grace Episcopal Church, Jamaica, New York.
`
`17. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, operated the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, managed the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`19. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, maintained the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant DIOCESE, controlled the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMTSTAD, owned the premises
`
`identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 11,
`
`including the westerly side
`
`of Parsons Boulevard,
`
`located approximately 125 feet north from
`
`its intersection with Jamaica Avenue, and approximately 80 feet
`
`south from its intersection with 90th Avenue, and the graveyard
`
`of Grace Episcopal Church, Jamaica, New York.
`
`22. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, operated the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, managed the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`4
`
`

`

`24. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, maintained the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`25. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD, controlled the aforesaid
`
`premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`26. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA
`
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING, hired the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to manage
`
`the aforementioned premises and property.
`
`27. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA
`
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING, contracted the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to
`
`manage the aforementioned premises and property.
`
`28. That prior to August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant
`
`JAMAICA
`
`SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING, retained the defendant AMISTAD,
`
`to
`
`manage the aforementioned premises and property.
`
`29. That on or about August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant AMISTAD
`
`was performing management services for the aforementioned
`
`premises and property.
`
`30. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, owned the
`
`premises identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 11,
`
`including the
`
`westerly side of Parsons Boulevard,
`
`located approximately 125
`
`feet north from its intersection with Jamaica Avenue, and
`
`approximately 80 feet south from its intersection with 90th
`
`Avenue, and the graveyard of Grace Episcopal Church, Jamaica, New
`
`York.
`
`31. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`

`

`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, operated
`
`the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`32. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, managed
`
`the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`33. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, maintained
`
`the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`34. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011,
`
`the defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, controlled
`
`the aforesaid premises,
`
`including the sidewalks thereat.
`
`35. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on August
`
`18, 2011, a portion of the sidewalk on Parsons Boulevard,
`
`adjacent to the premises identified as Tax Block 9754, Lot 11,
`
`in
`
`the County of Queens, City and State of New York, was in a
`
`defective, raised, uneven and dangerous condition.
`
`36. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant
`
`JAMAICA SENIOR
`
`CITIZENS HOUSING, had actual and/or constructive notice of the
`
`defective and dangerous condition on the aforesaid sidewalk,
`
`and/or actually created said defective and dangerous condition.
`
`37. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant DIOCESE, had
`
`actual and/or constructive notice of the defective and dangerous
`
`condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or actually created said
`
`defective and dangerous condition.
`
`38. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant AMISTAD, had
`
`actual and/or constructive notice of the defective and dangerous
`
`condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or actually created said
`
`defective and dangerous condition.
`
`6
`
`

`

`39. That prior to August 18, 2011, defendant GRACE EPISCOPAL
`
`CHURCH, had actual and/or constructive notice of the defective
`
`and dangerous condition on the aforesaid sidewalk, and/or
`
`actually created said defective and dangerous condition.
`
`40. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on
`
`August 18, 2011, plaintiff JUANITA WILSON, was lawfully
`
`traversing on the westerly side of Parsons Boulevard,
`
`located
`
`approximately 125 feet north from its intersection with Jamaica
`
`Avenue, and approximately 80 feet south from its intersection
`
`with 90th Avenue, adjacent to the graveyard of Grace Episcopal
`
`Church,
`
`in the County of Queens, City and State of New York.
`
`41. That on or about August 18, 2011, while the plaintiff
`
`JUANITA WILSON, was lawfully traversing the aforesaid sidewalk,
`
`she sustained serious personal injuries when she was precipitated
`
`to the ground due to a defective and dangerous condition,
`
`to wit:
`
`a cracked, raised, and uneven sidewalk, causing a said area to be
`
`a tripping hazard,
`
`treacherous, and unsafe for pedestrians
`
`walking at that vicinity, and specifically this plaintiff.
`
`42. That at all times hereinafter mentioned,
`
`the defendants
`
`were required to provide all pedestrians,
`
`including the plaintiff
`
`JUANITA WILSON, a safe condition to traverse upon and failed to
`
`do so.
`
`43. That it was the duty of the defendants,
`
`their agents,
`
`servants and/or employees to maintain and keep said premises and
`
`sidewalk,
`
`in a safe and proper manner so as not to endanger the
`
`life and limbs of persons and to give due and timely notice or
`
`warning of the attendant peril or danger to all pedestrians,
`
`including specifically,
`
`the plaintiff JUANITA WILSON.
`
`7
`
`

`

`44. That the defendants, its agents, servants and/or
`
`employees were negligent in causing, permitting, and allowing a
`
`dangerous condition,
`
`to wit, a cracked, raised, deteriorated, and
`
`uneven sidewalk,
`
`thereby constituting a nuisance, danger, menace
`
`and hazard;
`
`in failing to provide a safe means for pedestrians to
`
`traverse to and from its park at the aforesaid location;
`
`in
`
`causing and/or allowing the sidewalk to become and remain in a
`
`dangerous condition;
`
`in actually creating a nuisance, danger,
`
`menace, and hazard;
`
`in failing to perform proper and adequate
`
`inspections;
`
`in causing and allowing said sidewalk to have a
`
`defective condition;
`
`in failing to take proper action to remedy
`
`same despite both actual and constructive