Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IndexNo. 3 I I /67
Plaintiff designates
NEW YORK COUNTY
MICHAEL WOLFF and ALISON ANTHOTNE, his wife, as the place of trial
SUMMONS
WITH NOTICE
You Are Hereby Summoned to answer the Complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of
your answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a notice of appearance
on the plaintiffs' attorney, within 20 days after service of the Summons, exclusive of the day of
service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally in the state, or within 30 days after
completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear
or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
Alison Anthoine
1065 Lexington Avenue
#6A
New York, New York 10021
-2-
EDITH ANTHOINE,
Plaintiff,
*-
-against- VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
MICHAEL WOLFF and ALISON ANTHOTNEj his wi e, F/L
+t
Ddfendants. 2Q
'QiexNo. 1 1007111'7
As and For a First Count - Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
1. That the plaintiff, Edith Anthoine, is an individual resident and domiciled in the
County of New York at 207 East 74'h Street #SF, New York, New York 10021.
2. That the defendants, Michael Wolff and Alison Anthoine, his wife, are individuals
resident and domiciled in the County of New York at 1065 Lexington Avenue #6A, New York,
3. On or about June 1, 1954, the plaintiff and her former husband, Robert Anthoine,
moved into the rental apartment known as #6B at 1065 Lexington Avenue, New York,
New York.
4. On or about February 1, 1964, following the birth of their fourth child, the
plaintiff and her former husband moved into the larger apartment known as #6A at 1065
6. On or about June 1, 1983, Edith Anthoine’s husband separated and left the
#6A rental apartment; the couple were thereafter divorced on or about June 1, 1990.
continued to live as the leasehold tenant of the #6A apartment at 1065 Lexington Avenue.
8. On or about January 1, 1984, the owners of the 1065 Lexington Avenue building
were approved by the NY Attorney General for a cooperative conversion plan for the building.
9. Under the cooperative conversion plan for the building, long-term residents
such as plaintiff could either purchase their apartment at a lesser, below-market “insider
10. During the period 1976 to 1994, the defendants Michael Wolff and Alison
Anthoine were living in a two-bedroom apartment on West 77thStreet, New York ,New York
with their three young children. During this period the defendant Alison Anthoine was employed
as a corporate lawyer at various firms and companies, and defendant Michael Wolff was an
aspiring j ournalistlauthor.
11. On or about March 1, 1994, the defendants proposed to plaintiff that she
allow them to exercise her right to buy the #6A unit at an “insider price,” and in exchange they
would purchase for her use a smaller apartment in the neighborhood, for which the plaintiff
12. Plaintiff agreed to this exchange and transfer of her rights to the #6A unit to the
defendants as a means of extending a substantial benefit and gift to this daughter and son-in-law,
-2-
13. On or about September 1, 1994, the defendants purchased the apartment known as
#8F at 207 East 74'h Street (the cooperative corporate shares and proprietary lease thereto) in
their individual names, with mortgage financing, contemporaneously with their purchase of the
#6A apartment (the cooperative corporate shares and proprietary lease thereto) at 1065 Lexington
14. On or about April 1, 1995, after being financially and personally vetted and
approved by the Board of Directors of the 207 East 74thStreet cooperative corporation as the
occupant for the #8F unit, plaintiff then removed herself and her personal effects from the #6A
apartment at 1065 Lexington Avenue, and moved into the #8F unit at 207 East 741h Street
15. No rentals, leaseholds or statutory tenancies are permitted at 207 East 741hStreet
under the cooperative corporation's house rules and regulations, and it was clearly understood by
the Board of Directors and the parties that plaintiff was the intended resident of the unit for as
16. At all times herein, the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the representations of
the defendants that they would be purchasing the smaller one-bedroom apartment in the
neighborhood specifically for her to live out her life in, and which they could then enjoy the
-3 -
74’hStreet for over fourteen years since moving from the #6A unit at 1065 Lexington Avenue, in
18. Further pleading, during her tenure at #8F, the plaintiff has made regular annual
gifts within the applicable federal exemption amounts to the defendants, or made tax-exempt
gifts covering their children’s tuition fees to various private schools, to further benefit the
defendants in their overall relationship herein, and to cover her maintenance fees.
19. During her tenure at #8F, the plaintiff has paid the monthly maintenance fees
and utilities for the unit, and has paid for the annual insurance coverage on the unit.
20. Plaintiff claims that her annual monetary gifts were understood by the
defendants to cover their maintenance payments for the #8F unit, while allowing the defendants
2 1. Further, during her tenure at #8F, the plaintiff has personally maintained the
premises and watched it appreciate in value to approximately five times its original purchase
22. On or about May 18,2005, the plaintiff, then 82-years old, and in further
reliance upon the good faith and fair dealing of her children, divided her Fidelity Fund portfolio
into four identical and equal portions and transferred these portions to the respective names of
her four individual children, with the explicit understanding that these funds were to be held by
these children for her benefit, and that the assets contained therein would be used only for her
benefit until such time as she deceased, whereupon any remaining amounts in the four separate
-4-
children.‘
23. Thereafter, on or about March 1, 2007, the defendants informed plaintiff that they
wanted her “out” of the #8F apartment, claiming they wished to sell the unit for their own profit
24. Thereafter, following further negative contacts with the defendants, on or about
May 1,2008 the plaintiff suffered a heart attack, known in medical parlance as a “Takotsubo
cardiomyopathy” heart attack (a stress-induced swelling of the heart muscle), and was removed
emergently via City of New York 9 1 1/EMS to nearby Lenox Hill Hospital, where she remained
25. In the opinion of plaintiffs treating physicians, and as will be presented at trial of
this matter, the conduct of the defendants in repeatedly upsetting her and pressuring her to move
out of the #8F unit was the direct and precipitating cause of this heart attack.
26. That the defendants have continued to communicate hostile messages directly to
the plaintiff and her three other children regarding her residency at the #8F unit, and have
27. That since on or about September 1,2008, the defendants have threatened to, and
have represented that they are now, invading plaintiffs own funds (those stock shares and
dividends being held by Alison Anthoine) for their alleged expenses in legal proceedings to
These four accounts each hold: 500 shares of British Petroleum, PLC; 1,250 shares of
Bank of America; 500 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb; and 50 shares of Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
with a value of $104,760.50 to each of her four children as of 5/3 1/05, to be held for her benefit.
-5-
#8F apartment and upon entry told plaintiff that he wanted her “out of the apartment by October
1,2008.”
29. Thereafter, on or about November 23,2008, the defendants herein attempted “nail
and mail” service of a statutory “thirty-day notice” to vacate the #8F premises, through a law
firm the defendants have apparently employed, and which notice to vacate was found by plaintiff
under her door on or about December 1,2008. Said notice threatens to initiate a Summary
30. Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages and seeks the equitable
relief of this Court from defendants’ willful breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealing.
32. Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages and seeks equitable relief
-
As and for A Third Count Breach of Fiduciary Duty
33. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29 above as if fully set forth herein.
34. On or about July 1, 2008, the managing agent for 207 East 74’h Street contacted
the plaintiff directly to inform her that no maintenance payment for the prior month had yet been
received, and that two payments were now in arrears as of July 1,2008.
35. Further pleading, plaintiff alleges she has always given defendants sufficient
funds to make timely payments of all monthly maintenance fees at the #8F unit.
-6-
36. Upon inquiry to the defendants in July 2008 regarding her issuance of monies
to the defendants for the payment of the maintenance fees for the apartment, plaintiff was told by
defendants that they were experiencing “cash flow7’problems, that they were “short of cash,” and
defendants had used her monies to send their 16-year old son to France for a summer vacation
37. Plaintiff then promptly contacted the managing agent for 207 East 74‘h Street and
arranged for immediate payment of the arrearage directly to the managing agent.
38. Plaintiff alleges she has been required to make similar payments to the building’s
39. On or about December 30,2008, plaintiff learned again from the managing agent
for 207 East 74‘hStreet that another two months’ maintenance fees were now in arrears, and
40. On information and belief, the defendants have been attempting to have the
plaintiff “evicted” from the #8F premises through a “forced sale” of the premises, by order of the
Board of Directors of the building, by repeatedly failing to pay the #8F unit’s maintenance
obligations, and that there is no other reasonable inference to be drawn from the defendants’
conduct herein.
41. Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages and reasonable
attorney’s fees, and seeks equitable relief from the defendants’ willful breach of fiduciary duty
herein.
-7-
43, Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages and seeks equitable
45. That based upon the history of the transactions between the defendants and the
plaintiff herein, the defendants were at all times in a confidential and fiduciary relationship with
the plaintiff; that plaintiff relied upon the promises and representations of the defendants; that
plaintiff was induced to act to her detriment pursuant to the promises and representations of the
defendants; that the defendants have been unjustly enriched within their relationship and
agreement with he plaintiff; that plaintiff is a completely innocent party herein warranting the
equitable relief of this Court, and that the plaintiff faces imminent and irreparable harm from the
46. Wherefore, the plaintiff seeks a constructive trust be equitably imposed upon the
#8F apartment unit, the corporate shares and the proprietary lease thereto, with beneficial
ownership vested in the plaintiff, and that the defendants be permanently enjoined from
harassing or interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the unit #8F premises for the
remainder of her life plus ninety (90) days after her death, in order that her lawful representatives
be allowed to remove her personal effects and property from the premises in an orderly fashion.
-8-
47. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29,34 through 40, and Paragraph 45
48. Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages and reasonable
attorney’s fees, and seeks equitable relief from the defendants’ fraud herein.
50. On information and belief, the defendants have unlawfully converted significant
attorney’s fees, and seeks equitable relief from the defendants’ conversion of her assets herein.
-
As and For an Eighth Count Replevin
52. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29,34 through 40, and Paragraphs 45
53. Wherefore, the plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of an Order of Replevin
for return of her: 500 shares of British Petroleum, PLC; 1,250 shares of Bank of America; 500
shares of Bristol Myers Squibb; and 50 shares of Zimmer Holdings, Inc., with all accrued
54. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29,34 through 40, and Paragraphs 45
-9-
purpose, or despite the substantial certainty, of thereby inflicting severe emotional distress.
57. In their above-alleged conduct, the defendants, Michael Wolff and Alison
Anthoine, acted maliciously and oppressively, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive
58. Plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm unless defendants are restrained and
59. Wherefore, the plaintiff herein claims monetary damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees, and seeks equitable relief horn the defendants’
-10-
general damages against the defendants in a sum not less than $2,000,000.00;
declaring and enforcing a constructive trust upon the 207 East 74'h Street #8F premises, with
plaintiff declared the beneficial owner thereof for her life plus ninety (90) days following her
death, and with specific orders that defendants make all mortgage payments for the premises
from their own accounts and at their own costs until the termination of the constructive trust.
against the Petitioners in a sum not less than $8 1,000.00, or according to proof thereof, and an
Alison Anthoine directing the return of all the stocks and accrued dividends entrusted to her on
a sum not less than $500,000.00, and for injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from m h e r
6. For such other and firther relief as to this Court seems just sind proper.
Edith Anthoine, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Plaintiff in the within
Complaint and has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is
true to her own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and
-
Edith Anthoine
-13-
I, Kevin P. Cadden, Esq., hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that I have no actual
knowledge that the substance of any statement of facts contained in the annexed Verified
Complaint are false. This certification is made by the attorney as an officer of the Court and is
directed solely and exclusively to the Court in accordance with 22 NYCRR 202.16(e) and is
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the opposing party may not or should not rely
upon this Attorney Certification in assessing the truth or validity of the information contained in
the annexed document. The credibility of this submission is no greater than the credibility of the
client(s) represented by the undersigned attorney and the opposing party should give this
-12-
EDITH ANTHOINE,
P 1aintiff,
-against-
Defendants.
Kevin P. Cadden
Attorney for Plaintiff
164 1 Deer Park Avenue
Deer Park, New York 11729
(631) 242-1515
Alison Anthoine
1065 Lexington Avenue
#6A
New York, New York 1002 1