SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK _ Index No.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Date Filed: Date Purchased: EDYTA REGNOWSKI, SUMMONS Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates -against- Suffolk County as the place of trial. BOATBOUND INC., WILLIAM EB. COLWIN and Basis of Venue: JOSEPH M. BALAREZO, Defendant, William E. Colwin’s Residence: Defendants. 32 Cedar Drive Huntington, NY 11743 TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: 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 plaintiff's attorneys 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 in the complaint. Dated: Hauppauge, New York October 16, 2015 Yours, etc., ‘THE LAW OFFICES OF EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 200 Motor Parkway, Suite A3 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631) 232-6600To: Defendants’ Addresses: BOATBOUND INC. 435 Harriet Street San Francisco, California 94103 WILLIAM E. COLWIN 32 Cedar Drive Huntington, New York 11743 JOSEPH M. BALAREZO 415 A Bayville Avenue Bayville, New York 11709SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x EDYTA REGNOWSKI, Index No.: Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- BOATBOUND INC., WILLIAM E. COLWIN and JOSEPH M. BALAREZO, Defendants. Plaintiff, EDYTA REGNOWSKI, complaining of the defendants, by her attorneys, THE LAW OFFICES OF EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, P.C., respectfully sets forth and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES/JURISDICTION 1, Plaintiff, EDYTA REGNOWSKI (hereinafter, “REGNOWSKT’), was and is an individual residing at 1 Sound Beach Avenue, Bayville, County of Nassau, State of New York. 2. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, BOUNDBOUND INC. (hereinafter, “BOATBOUND"), was and is a foreign corporation maintaining a principal place of business at 435 Harriet Street, San Francisco, California 94103. 3. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, BOATBOUND, was duly licensed to conduct and transact business inthe State of New York, and the events complained of herein arose therein. 4. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, BOATBOUND, was doing business in the State of New York, 5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND conducted business on a “day-to-day” basis in the State of New York and was thus “present” in New York State making it subject to jurisdiction therein. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND transacted business within the State of New York and/or contracted to supply goods and/or services in the State of New York, thus, rendering BOATBOUND subject to jurisdiction pursuant to New York State CPLR § 302{a), et seq 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND committed tortious acts within the State of New York, thus, rendering BOATBOUND subject to jurisdiction pursuant to New York State CPLR § 302(a), et seq. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND committed tortious acts without the state causing injury to plaintiff's person within the State of New York, thus, rendering BOATBOUND subject to jurisdiction pursuant to New York State CPLR § 302(a), et seq, 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND regularly did and/or solicited business, and/or engaged in a persistent course of conduct and/or derived substantial revenue from goods used and/or consumed and/or services rendered, in the State of New York, thus, rendering BOATBOUND subjectto jurisdiction pursuant to New York State CPLR § 302[a), et seq. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, BOATBOUND expected or should have reasonably expected its omissions and commissions to have consequences in the State of New York and that it derived substantial revenue from interstate and/or international commerce, thus, rendering BOATBOUND subject to jurisdiction pursuant to New York State CPLR § 302(a), et seq. 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, WILLIAM E. COLWIN (hereinafter “COLWIN”), was and is an individual residing at 32 Cedar Drive, Huntington, County of Suffolk, State of New York, 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, JOSEPH M. BALAREZO (hereinafter, “BALAREZO”), was and is an individual residing at 415 A Bayville Avenue, Bayville, County of Nassau, State of New York. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BOATBOUND SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE 13. ‘That defendant, BOATBOUND, was organized and formed in or about 2012 in Palo Alto, California. 14. That defendant, BOATBOUND’s principal business model was to connect, for a fee, private boat owners with individuals interested in renting recreational boats. 15. That defendant, BOATBOUND, solicited business nationally by, inter alia, initiating and utilizing a computer website that attempted to connect boat owners with potential renters.16. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the potential renters and/or operators would have little to no boating experience, as evidenced, interalia, by defendant, BOATBOUND utilizing phrases in its website such as, but not limited to, the following: “own a boat - no experience necessary.” 17. That on or before August 8, 2015, defendant, COLWIN, was solicited to rent his boat to third parties as set forth above, by BOATBOUND through its marketing efforts, including but not limited to, its website. 18. That on or before August 8, 2015, communication took place between defendants, BOATBOUND and COLWIN, with respect to the possibility of defendant, COLWIN, offering his 19 foot Bayliner pleasure boat bearing hull number BLBB53CSG112 (hereinafter, “the boat’), for rent through defendant, BOATBOUND. 19. ‘That defendant, BOATBOUND, took little or no affirmative steps to ascertain the condition of the boat prior to allowing the boat to be rented through defendant, BOATBOUND, including but not limited to, the presence of warning signs regarding propeller strike and/or the presence of a VHF radio and/or the presence of a GPS device. 20. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that defendant, COLWIN, lacked the reasonable amount of experience in operating the boat that would render him qualified to instructpotential renters and /or operators regarding how to safely operate the boat and/or warn of the dangers of foreseeable misuse of the boat. 21. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that, prior to the boat entering the renting pool, defendant, COLWIN, never completed a coast guard safety course and/or a state approved safety course and/or private course and/or any type of formal or informal boating and/or boating safety and/or boating perational training. 22. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that, prior to the boat entering the renting pool, defendant, COLWIN, never accessed /read the owners manual related to the boat, including but not limited to, the warnings therein regarding propeller strikes, and the importance of having a VHF radio on board the boat at all times. 23. ‘That in fact, upon information and belief, defendant, COLWIN, himself lacked a reasonable amount of experience and training to operate the boat safely. 24, That upon information and belief, defendant, COLWIN’s, ability and competence to adequately explain the proper procedure for operating the boat to renters, was inadequate. 25. That sometime before August 8, 2015, defendant, COLWIN, and plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, communicated on several occasions through defendant, BOATBOUND’s website, with same communication being facilitated byBOATBOUND. 26. Thatatall times relevant herein, defendant, BOATBOUND, monitored the website for its content and for electronic mail exchanges between renters and owners including the exchange between plaintiff and COLWIN. 27. ‘That several said electronic mail exchanges made it clear that if plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, did in fact rent the boat, REGNOWSKI would not be the sole operator of the boat, and that in fact, all occupants of the boat would be operating the boat and/or participating in water sporting events, such as water g and/or tubing and/or kneeboarding. 28. That the activities set forth above, by definition, necessitate more than one operator of the boat. 29. That on August 8, 2015, defendant, BALAREZO, was operating the boat when same was caused to strike plaintiff's person while she was in the water (hereinafter, “the accident”). 30. That the omissions and commissions of defendant, BOATBOUND, included, but are not limited to: (i) its failure to ascertain the lack of experience of defendant, COLWIN; (ii) its failure to realize defendant, COLWIN’s, inability to adequately and effectively familiarize the renters and potential operators in the safe usage of the boat; (ii) its failure to ensure that the subject boat was safe and seaworthy, including, but not limited to, ensuring the presence of a VHF radio. 31. That the omissions and commissions set forth herein were allsubstantial factors in causing plaintiff's accident and/or exacerbating plaintifi’s injuries. 32. That the documents promulgated by defendant, BOATBOUND, and provided to plaintiff at the pick up of the boat included instructions to utilize “the VHF radio” to immediately contact the authorities in the event of an accident. 33. That in fact, the boat was rented to plaintiff’s party without any handheld or installed VHF radio whatsoever. 34. That, upon the happening of the accident, no VHF radio was accessible by any of the occupants. 35, That, upon the happening of the accident, with no VHF radio on board, the occupants of the boat attempted to use cellular phone(s) to contact the authorities and that said cellular phones continually “dropped” the calls, causing ‘a substantial delay in communicating the facts of the accident, the severity of plaintiff's injuries, the fact that plaintiff's person was trapped by the propeller and thus submerged under water, the need for plaintiff to be airlifted from the scene, and the location of the boat and the plaintiff. 36. ‘That had the boat been properly equipped with a VHF radio, same would have automatically, upon the pressing of a red, clearly marked button, put the operator of said VHF radio in immediate contact with local and/or state and/or federal authorities, including but not limited to, harbor patrol, marine patrol, Suffolk County Police Marine Bureau, Nassau County Police MarineBureau and/or the U.S. Coast Guard, and electronically summon said authorities to the exact location of plaintiff and the boat. 37. That as a result of the delay calling for assistance as a result of the lack of the VHF radio, plaintiff remained trapped with her injured leg submerged for such a period of time that an intense infection set in. 38. That asa direct result of the delay in receiving assistance, said infection exacerbated plaintiff's trauma and was a substantial factor in plaintiff's leg being amputated. 39. ‘That upon transport to the hospital, surgeons and other healthcare providers made desperate attempts to save plaintifi’s leg, and that as a result of the delay and resulting infection, plaintiff's leg was amputated several days after her arrival to the hospital. 40, That, as a result of defendant, BOATBOUND’s negligence, plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, the eventual surgical amputation of her right lower extremity; has required and will continue to require medical aid and attention; was, and is, incapacitated from her normal duties; and was, and is, otherwise injured all to her damage in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action. 41. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602. -10-AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BOATBOUND SOUNDING IN FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT 42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this complaint with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 43, ‘That defendant, BOATBOUND on its website and in other forums, held out and warranted to potential owners and renters, including both defendant, COLWIN, and plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, that the boat that plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, would be renting was fully insured both by insurance provided through defendant, BOATBOUND, and private insurance provided to defendant, COLWIN. 7 That defendant, BOATBOUND, warranted this information by, inter alia, assertions and guarantees on its website such as, “That's why we've gone the extra mile to provide every Boatbound owner and renter peace of mind with At insurance protection place in Lloyd’s of London...”, and, “Up to $3M in Insurance Protection... Each rental on Boatbound comes with up to $1,000,000 in liability protection and up to $2,000,000 in hull protection for all non- commercially insured boats”, and, “How it works with your insurance... The insurance acts as the primary during the rental period and doesn’t require you to change anything with your personal insurance plan.” 45. That the statements made by defendant, BOATBOUND, with respect to its insurance, induced plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, to enter into a contract oewith defendant, BOATBOUND, and/or defendant, COLWIN, to rent the boat. 46. That contrary to the assertions set forth with respect to insurance, both defendant, BOATBOUND’s, insurance carrier and defendant, COLWIN’s, carrier, have declined to provide insurance coverage to plaintiff, REGNOWSKI. 47. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that defendant, COLWIN’s, policy would have an exclusion for commercial use and/or rental of the boat (“the commercial/rental exclusion’) . 48, That the ubiquitous existence of such commercial/rental exclusion is well known throughout the boating industry and universally or nearly w sally present in every private boat insurance policy. 49, That defendant, BOATBOUND, fraudulently and intentionally deceived plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, and defendant, COLWIN, with respect to the existence of an insurance company and/or policy that would have covered plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, in case of an accident. 50. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that its own policy would not cover plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, in the case of an accident, such as the one complained of herein. 51. That defendant, BOATBOUND, made misrepresentation(s) and/or material omission(s) of fact(s) to plaintiff, including but not limited to, the existence of full and complete insurance coverage for the occupants of the boat “12.including plaintiff and that both defendant, COLWIN’s and BOATBOUND’s, carriers would insure personal injury losses incurred during the use of the boat. 52. That said misrepresentation(s) and/or omission(s) induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract with defendant, BOATBOUND, and defendant, COLWIN, to rent the boat. 53. That defendant, BOATBOUND, knew the misrepresentation(s) to be false and intended to induce the plaintiff's reliance on same. 54. That the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation(s) and/or omission(s) to her great financial detriment. 55. That as a result of said misrepresentation(s) and/or omission(s), plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, the eventual surgical amputation of her right lower extremity; has required and will continue to require medical aid and attention; was, and is, incapacitated from her normal dutie: ; and was, and is, otherwise injured all to her damage in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action. 56. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIAM E. COLWIN SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE 57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in -13-each and every paragraph of this complaint with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length 58. That on August 8, 2015, plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, and her party, including, defendant, BALAREZO, Ryan A. Mavros, Michael W. Beers, and Diana P. Maxwell, met defendant, COLWIN, in person ata marina/facility located in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. 59. That on said date, at approximately 10:30 a.m., defendant, COLWIN, and the occupants of the boat had (a) conversation(s) about the operation of the boat including, but not limited to, how to operate the engine, how to raise and lower the trim, how to launch the anchor, the local speed limits, ete. 60. That on said date, after the conversation on land, defendant, COLWIN, took the above parties for a familiarization ride on the water in the boat (“the familiarization ride”) . 61, That during the familiarization ride and the meeting set forth in paragraph 42, supra, defendant, COLWIN, directed his comments, warnings and instructions to all of the occupants of the boat including but not limited to defendant, BALAREZO. 62, That defendant, COLWIN, was aware that all occupants of the boat would be operating the boat during the rental period. 63. That defendant, COLWIN, himself lacked the reasonable amount of experience in operating the boat properly and safely. “14:64. That by virtue of, inter alia, electronic transmissions between himself and plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, and the conversation(s) at the marina and during the familiarization ride, defendant, COLWIN, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that other individuals involved in plaintiff, REGNOWSKI’s party, including defendant, BALAREZO, would be operating the boat. 65. Upon information and belief, that at the time of the accident that is the subject of the above captioned matter, the boat owned by defendant, COLWIN, was being operated by defendant, BALAREZO, pursuant to New York State Navigation Law 48, with permission, expressed and/or implied, of COLWIN, defendant, based upon, inter alia, defendant, COLWIN's conversations with defendant, BALAREZO. 66. That by virtue of the electronic communications between himself and plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, and the conversations with the occupants of the boat, including but not limited to, defendant, BALAREZO, defendant, COLWIN, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that plaintiff’s party would be engaging in tubing and/or skiing and/or kneeboarding. 67. That by virtue of the electronic communications between himself and plaintiff, REGNOWSKI, and the conversations with the occupants of the boat, defendant, COLWIN, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that defendant, BALAREZO, would be operating the boat. eis68. That on August 8, 2015, at approximately 12:00 p.m., the propeller of the boat came into contact with the person of plaintiff, REGNOWSKI. 69, That asa result of the above contact, the propellor snared plaintiff's right leg and caused severe lacerations to both lower extremities and her pelvic region. 70, That the documents provided to plaintiff at the pick up of the boat included instructions to utilize “the VHF" radio to contact the authorities in the event of an accident. 71. That in fact, the boat was rented to plaintiff's party without any handheld or installed VHF radio whatsoever. 72, That, upon the happening of the accident, no VHF radio was accessible by any of the occupants. 73. That, upon the happening of the accident, the occupants attempted to use cellular phone(s) to contact the authorities and that said cellular phones continually “dropped” the calls. 74. That had the boat been equipped with a VHF radio, same would have automatically, upon the pressing of a red, clearly marked button, electronically summoned authorities to the exact location of plaintiff and the boat. 75, That as a result of the delay in calling for assistance as a result of the lack of the VHF radio, plaintiff remained trapped with her injured leg submerged for such a period of time that an intense infection set in. “1676. That as a direct result of the delay in receiving assistance, said infection exacerbated plaintiff's trauma and was a substantial factor in plaintiff's leg being amputated. 77. That upon transport to the hospital, surgeons and other healthcare providers made desperate attempts to save plaintifi’s leg, and that as a result of the delay and resulting infection, plaintiff’s leg was amputated several days after her arrival to the hospital. 78. That plaintifi’s injuries, including but not limited to the amputation, were caused, in whole or in part, by the delay in extricating plaintiff's person from the propeller and from the water which arose in whole or in part from the lack of the VHF radio and/or GPS. 79. That COLWIN, by virtue of the omissions and commissions set forth herein, had “knowledge and privity” of the dangerous conditions of the boat and the lack of seaworthiness of said boat resulting therefrom. 80, That, as a result of the foregoing plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, the eventual surgical amputation of her right lower extremity; has required and will continue to require medical aid and attention; was, and is, incapacitated from her normal duties; and was, and is, otherwise injured all to her damage in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action. “17.81. That this action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT 82. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this complaint with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 83. That defendant, COLWIN, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of defendant, BALAREZO’s, inexperience in operating boats, and thus the likelihood of an accident to occur. 84, That defendant, COLWIN, was affirmatively negligent in, inter alia, failing to properly instruct the likely operators of the recreational boat, or the foreseeable operators of the recreational boat, of proper and safe operation of said boat; failing to develop and provide adequate safety procedures for emergency situations; failing to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances; failing to ensure that the likely operators of the recreational boat, or the foreseeable operators, were properly trained to operate the recreational boat in a safe manner; failing to recognize a risk to passenger safety in permitting the inexperienced defendant, BALAREZO, operate the recreational boat; failing to have a competent operator piloting the recreational boat; failing to provide an operational VHF radio. -18-85. That, as a result of the foregoing plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, the eventual surgical amputation of her right lower extremity; has required and will continue to require medical aid and attention; was, and is, incapacitated from her normal duties; and was, and is, otherwise injured all to her damage in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action. 86. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH M, BALAREZO SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE 87. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this complaint with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 88. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, on or about August 8, 2015, defendant, BALAREZO, operated the boat owned by defendant, COLWIN. 89, Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the boat owned by defendant, COLWIN, was operated by defendant, BALAREZO, pursuant to New York State Navigation Law 48, with permission, expressed and/or implied, of defendant COLWIN, 90, That on or about August 8, 2015, defendant, BALAREZO, was -19-operating the aforesaid recreational boat in Cold Spring Harbor, County of Nassau, State of New York. 91. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the aforementioned body of water was a public thoroughfare within the County of Nassau, State of New York. 92. That defendant, BALAREZO, engaged the transmission of the boat in the “reverse” position, causing the boat and the propeller to strike plaintiff's person, resulting in catastrophic injuries as set forth herein at length. 93. That, as a result of defendant, BALAREZO’s, negligence, plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, the eventual surgical amputation of her right lower extremity; has required and will continue to require medical aid and attention; was, and is, incapacitated from her normal duties; and was, and is, otherwise injured all to her damage in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action. 94. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants as follows: (i) On the first cause of action herein in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (i) On the second cause of action herein in a sum of money, in -20-compensatory damages, that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (ii) On the second cause of action herein in a sum of money, in punitive damages, that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (i) On the third cause of action herein in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (On the fourth cause of action herein in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (vi) On the fifth cause of action herein in a sum of money that would exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this action; (vil) Together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Hauppauge, New York October 16, 2015 Yours, etc., 200 MotorParkway, Suite A3 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631) 232-6600 “21.ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms: that the undersigned, EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, attorney for the plaintiff in the within action and that the undersigned has read the foregoing SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof; that the same are true to the affirmant’s own knowledge, except as the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as to those matters, affirmant believes them to be true. ‘The undersigned further states that the reason this Verification is made by the undersigned and not by said plaintiff is that plaintiff does not reside in the County in which the undersigned maintains his office. ‘The grounds of affirmant's belief as to all matters not stated to be upon affirmant’s knowledge is the file maintained by this office. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under penalty of perjury. Dated: Hauppauge, New York October 16, 2015 THE LAW OFFICES OF EDMOND Cc, EDMOND 200 Motof/Parkway, Suite A3 Hauppauge, New York 11788 (631) 232-6600Index No.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK EDYTA REGNOWSKI, Plaintiff, -against- BOATBOUND INC., WILLIAM E. COLWIN and JOSEPH M, BALAREZO, Defendants, SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT er From: THE LAW OFFICES OF EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, P.C. 200 MOTOR PARKWAY, SUITE A3 HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788 (631) 232-6600 (631) 232-1432 fax Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130- 1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. Dated: Hauppauge, New York October 16, 2015