FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO.

155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________________Ç

SAFET HADZOVIC, Index No.

Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
-against-

THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL IN THE CITY OF

NEW YORK, A/K/A THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL,
109 EAST 73, LLC, and
MAGDALENE CASOLA A/K/A MAGGIE CASOLA,

Defendants.
_______________________________________________________Ç

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Verified Complaint in the above

action and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff's attorneys within twenty (20) days after

the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after

completion of service, where service is made in any other manner than personal delivery within

the State of New York. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against

you by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint.

New York County is designated as the place for trial. The basis for venue is the Plaintiff's

residence, the one or more of the Defendant's principal place of business, the location of the subject

real property, and the location of the transactions and occurrences giving rise to the action.

Dated: New York, New York

June 21, 2023

DAVID ROZENHOLC & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Michael B. Terk
950 Third Avenue, Suite 2600
New York, New York 10022

(212) 983-4141
[email protected]

1 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

TO: THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK

A/K/A THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL
73rd
113 East
New York, New York 10021

109 EAST 73, LLC

25 Blue Heron Avenue

Hampstead, New Hampshire 03841

MAGDALENE CASOLA A/K/A MAGGIE CASOLA

25 Blue Heron Avenue

Hampstead, New Hampshire 03841

2 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------Ç

SAFET HADZOVIC, Index No.

Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-

THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL IN THE CITY

OF NEW Y ORK, A/K/A THE BUCKLEY

SCHOOL, 109 EAST 73, LLC, and

MAGDALENE CASOLA A/K/A MAGGIE

CASOLA,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, SAFET HADZOVIC, by and through his attorneys, David Rozenholc &

Associates, as and for his verified complaint against the Defendants, respectfully sets forth and

shows this honorable Court, as follows:

PARTIES/JURISDICTION/FACTS

A. Parties, Jurisdiction, etc.

1. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the City, County, and State of New York.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL IN THE CITY

OF NEW YORK A/K/A THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL ("Buckley School"), is a non-for-profit

organization organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and a non-public school

chartered by the New York State Board of Regents, with its principal residence of place of business

in the City, County, and State of New York.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant 109 EAST 73, LLC ("109 East") is a

domestic limited liability company ("LLC") organized under the laws of the State of New York,

maintaining its principal place of business in the City and State of New York.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant MAGDALENE CASOLA A/K/A

3 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

MAGGIE CASOLA ("Casola") is the principal, managing member, and/or head officer of 109 East.

5. During the time period of at least 2016 to 2023, Casola (a) exercised complete

dominion and control over 109 East, including, but not limited to, all of the acts and omissions of

109 East alleged herein, and (b) used such dominion and control, and abused the corporate form, to

direct the acts and omissions of 109 East alleged herein, to commit a wrong, fraud, or injustice

against Plaintiff which resulted in injury, harm and damages.

6. Upon information and belief, Casola otherwise disregarded and/or abused the

corporate form with respect to Plaintiff, the Building, and the Apartment.

7. Despite the fact that 109 East is an LLC, Casola cannot use the corporate shield of

109 East to avoid liability for the acts and omissions alleged herein and is individually liable to

Plaintiff to the same extent as 109 East.

8. Upon information and belief, from on or about November 1, 1998 until or on or

about June 8, 2023, 109 East was the owner and landlord of the building and land known as and

73rd
located at 109 East Street, New York, New York 10021 (Borough of Manhattan, Block 1408,

Lot 7) ("Building"), in the City, County, and State of New York.

9. Upon information and belief, Buckley School is, and has been since on or about

June 8, 2023, the owner and landlord of the Building.

B. The Apartment, Building, and Plaintiff's Tenancy

10. Plaintiff is, and has been since in or about 2016, the tenant of the residential housing

accommodation known as Apartment 3B ("Apartment") in the Building.

11. The Building is a multiple dwelling containing more than six (6) residential units.

12. Upon information and belief, from on or about November 1, 1998 until on or about

June 8, 2023, 109 East was the owner and landlord of the building.

13. Plaintiff commenced occupancy of the Apartment in or about 2016.

14. Plaintiff originally commenced occupancy of the Apartment pursuant to a written

4 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

lease.

15. Plaintiff paid rent for the Apartment to 109 East and Casola for each and every

month from the commencement of his occupancy in or about 2016 through February 2023.

16. Defendants 109 East and Casola, and subsequently Buckley School, have unlawfully

failed and refused to offer Plaintiff a lease or lease renewal for any term subsequent to 2017.

17. For the period from when Plaintiff commenced occupancy of the Apartment in or

about 2016, through and including February 2023, monthly rent in the amount of $2,000.00 per

month was (a) charged to Plaintiff by 109 East and Casola, (b) billed to Plaintiff by 109 East and

Casola, (c) paid by Plaintiff to 109 East and Casola, and (d) collected and retained from Plaintiff by

109 East and Casola.

18. From March 2023 to the present, 109 East and Casola, and subsequently Buckley

School, have refused to accept rent from Plaintiff.

C. History of Rent Registrations

19. Upon information and belief, in 1984, the Building's then-owner filed an initial rent

registration statement with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

("DHCR") acknowledging the rent stabilized status of the Apartment and identifying one "William

Cubberley"
as the rent stabilized tenant at an alleged legal regulated rent of $416.10 per month.

20. Upon information and for the years 1985 through the Building's then-
belief, 2004,

owner and landlord filed annual rent registration statements for the Apartment with DHCR

Cubberley"
representing the rent stabilized tenants of the Apartment to be "William (1985-1986),

[sic]" Velotta"
"Stephen V K Friedman (1987), and "Deborah (1998-2004) at alleged legal

regulated rents of ranging from $416.10 per month in 1984 to $1,066.33 per month in 2004.

21. Upon information and belief, the Building's then-owner and landlord filed an annual

rent registration statement with DHCR for 2005 alleging the rent stabilized tenant of the Apartment

to be one "Joseph Camper", at an alleged legal rent of $1,425.00 per month, for an alleged lease

5 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

term of May 6, 2004 through May 31, 2005.

22. Upon information and belief, the Building's then-owner and landlord filed an annual

rent registration statement with DHCR for 2006 alleging the rent stabilized tenant of the Apartment

to be one "Lopez [sic]", at an alleged legal rent of $1,800.00 per month, for an alleged lease term of

August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006.

23. Upon information and belief, the Building's then-owner and landlord filed an annual

rent registration statement with DHCR for 2007 alleging the rent stabilized tenant of the Apartment

to be one "Lopez [sic]", at an alleged legal rent of $1,800.00 per month, for an alleged lease term of

August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2007.

24. Upon information and belief, the Building's then-owner and landlord filed an annual

rent registration statement with DHCR for 2008 alleging the rent stabilized tenant of the Apartment

to be one "Lopez [sic]", at an alleged legal rent of $1,900.00 per month, and omitting and failing to

indicate any lease term.

25. Upon information and belief, on or about May 15, 2008, the Building's then-owner

and landlord filed a rent registration with DHCR for 2009 representing that the Apartment was

permanently exempt from rent stabilization on the basis of vacancy deregulation.

26. Upon information and belief, from 2010 to the present, no rent registration

statements for the Apartment have been filed with DHCR.

Defendants'
D. The Apartment's Rent Stabilized Status and Unlawful Conduct

27. The rental of the Apartment to Plaintiff by Defendants and their predecessors for the

Apartment were for non-regulated market rents, pursuant first to a non-regulated free-market lease

and subsequently thereafter without a written lease.

28. From 2017 onward, Defendants failed and refused to fumish Plaintiff with a lease or

lease renewal.

29. Although the Apartment was and is subject to rent stabilization, Plaintiff was never

6 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

provided with any rent stabilized lease, rent stabilized lease renewal, or rent stabilization rider.

30. Although the Apartment was and is subject to rent stabilization, Defendants and/or

their predecessor(s) failed to provide a rent stabilized vacancy lease to Plaintiff at any time.

31. Upon information and belief, any vacancy increase for the Apartment to which

Defendants or their predecessor(s) were entitled, if any, prior to the filing of the 2009 annual

registration with DHCR purporting the Apartment to be exempt on the basis of vacancy

deregulation, were not sufficient to raise the legal rent to $2,000.00 per month or higher, as would

have been required as a matter of law for vacancy deregulation in 2009.

32. Upon information and belief, at no time in or prior to 2009, did Defendants or their

predecessor(s) perform renovations and/or improvements to the Apartment, sufficient, in

conjunction with other permissible increases in the legal regulated rent, to cause the legal regulated

rent to rise to $2,000.00 per month or higher, as would have been required as a matter of law for

vacancy deregulation in 2009.

33. The rent registration statement filed on or about May 15, 2009 expressly, falsely,

and fraudulently represented the Apartment to be exempt from rent stabilization.

34. The increases in the rent amounts contained in the annual registrations filed with

DHCR for the Apartment prior to 2009, including, without limitation, the 34% increase from

$1,066.33 per month in 2004 to $1,425.00 per month in 2005, the 26% increase from $1,425.00 per

month in 2005 to $1,800 per month in 2006, and/or the increase from $1,800.00 per month in 2007

to $1,900.00 per month in 2008, were in excess of any permissible increase in the legal regulated

rent under the Rent Stabilization Law ("RSL"), Rent Stabilization Code ("RSC"), Emergency

Tenant Protection Act of 1974 ("ETPA"), and/or any other statutes or regulation governing rent

stabilization and increases in the legal rent for rent stabilized apartments.

35. Upon information and belief, the rents charged to Plaintiff and collected by

Defendants and their predecessor(s) in the amounts of $2,000.00 per month were, and are, illegal,

7 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

and constituted an unlawful rent overcharge

36. Upon information and belief, the express and/or implied claim by Defendants and/or

their predecessor(s) that the Apartment was and is exempt from rent stabilization due to high rent

vacancy, or on any other basis, is erroneous and lacks legal and/or factual justification.

37. Upon information and belief, the Defendants and their predecessor(s), and their

principals, management, agents and/or employees fraudulently, willfully and/or wrongfully

removed the Apartment from rent stabilization and deprived the Plaintiff of his rights pursuant to

the RSL, RSC, ETPA, and/or other statutes or regulations governing rent stabilization and increases

in the legal rent for rent stabilized apartments.

38. Upon information and belief, the Defendants and their predecessor(s), and their

principals, management, agents and/or employees fraudulently, willfully and/or wrongfully

overcharged Plaintiff by collecting rents in excess of the legal regulated rent for the Apartment.

39. Upon information and belief, the Apartment remains rent stabilized subject to the

RSL, RSC, and/or ETPA.

40. 109 East and Casola issued to Plaintiff, a document denominated "Ninety (90) Day

Notice to Terminate, dated March 27, 2023 ("90-Day Notice"), and purporting to terminate

tenancy"
Plaintiff's alleged "month to month on June 30, 2023.

41. The purported 90-Day Notice is null and void, of no force or effect, and ineffective

to terminate Plaintiff's tenancy of the Apartment, as Plaintiff is a rent stabilized tenant whose

days'
tenancy is not subject to at-will termination on 90 notice or otherwise subject to termination,

other than for an enumerated ground for termination of rent stabilized tenancy under the RSL and

RSC.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)

42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 41 above, and further alleges as follows.

8 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

43. Plaintiff requests and is entitled to a declaratory judgment declaring the rights of the

parties to this action and, in particular, adjudging and declaring (a) that the purported 90-Day Notice

is null and void, of nor force or effect, and ineffective to terminate Plaintiff's tenancy of the

Apartment, (b) that the Apartment is subject to rent stabilization, (c) that Plaintiff is the lawful rent

stabilized tenant of the Apartment, (d) that the rents paid by Plaintiff and collected by Defendants

and/or their predecessor(s) are and were unlawful, and (e) the amount of the correct legal regulated

rent for the Apartment.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 43 above, and further alleges as follows.

45. Plaintiff respectfully demands an order/injunction directing Bucldey School to

furnish Plaintiff with a rent stabilized renewal lease for the Apartment at the correct legal regulated

rent and properly register the Apartment with DHCR as a rent stabilized unit at the correct legal

regulated rent.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (RENT OVERCHARGE)

46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 45 above, and further alleges as follows.

47. Upon finding that the Apartment is subject to rent stabilization, Plaintiff respectfully

requests and is entitled to a determination from the Court determining the correct legal rent, and

judgment against the Defendants for rent overcharges, in an amount to be determined by the Court.

48. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for any and all overcharges made

by Defendants, in an amount to be determined by the Court.

49. Upon information and belief, the rent overcharges by Defendants were willful.

50. Plaintiff demands that such judgment against Defendants for rent overcharge include

treble damages, upon the entire willful overcharge by the Defendants.

9 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

(ATTORNEYS'
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FEES)

51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 50 above, and further alleges as follows.

52. Upon information and belief, the original lease, between Defendant(s) and/or their

predecessor(s) as landlord and Plaintiff as tenant, contain legal fees provisions in favor of the

landlord.

53. The conduct of the Defendants of which Plaintiff complains constitutes breaches of

the lease agreement, as modified implicitly modified by the RSL, RSC, and/or ETPA.

attorneys'
54. The RSL, RSC, and/or ETPA authorize recovery of reasonable fees by

tenants in connection with the prosecution of a rent overcharge claim, in the event an overcharge is

determined to have occurred.

attorneys'
55. Plaintiff demands a judgment for against Defendants, for his reasonable

Defendants'
fees for Plaintiff's prosecution of this action, Plaintiff's efforts to secure compliance

with the RSL, RSC, and/or ETPA, and Plaintiff's prosecution of any claim for rent overcharge,

pursuant to Real Property Law §234, RSL §26-516(a)(4), RSC §2526.1(d), and/or otherwise.

10 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment in his favor, as follows:

(a) on the First Cause of Action, a declaratory judgment adjudging and declaring (a) that the
Apartment is subject to rent stabilization, (b) that Plaintiff is the lawful rent stabilized tenant
of the Apartment, (c) that the rents paid by Plaintiff and collected by Defendants and/or their

predecessor(s) are and were unlawful, and (d) the amount of the correct legal regulated rent
for the Apartment.

(b) on the Second Cause of Action, a permanent injunction for the injunctive relief requested

therein;

(c) on the Third Cause of Action, a money judgment against Defendants, in an amount to be
determined by the Court, together with statutory interest to the extent applicable;

(d) on the Fourth Cause of Action, a money judgment against Defendant, in an amount to be
determined by the Court, together with statutory interest to the extent applicable; and

(e) such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

June 21, 2023

Yours, etc.

DAVID ROZENHOLC & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By:

Michael B. Terk, Esq.

950 Third Avenue, Suite 2600
New York, New York 10022

(212) 983-4141

[email protected]

11 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2023 03:58 PM INDEX NO. 155590/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2023

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) sS.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

SAFET HADZOVIC, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Plaintiff in this action,

I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the content thereof, and the same is true

to my own knowledge, except for matters stated upon information and belief, which matters I

believe to be true.

SA T ADZOVIC

Sworn to before me this

day of June, 2023

Notary Public

MICHAEL B. TERK
of New York
NOTARY PUBLIC , State
01TE6090832

m
No
County
Qualified in Nassau
April 21
Commission Explrea

12 of 12