WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 11/53/2014 02:56 INDEX NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ?x KENNETH WALTER DEARDEN, JR., Index No.: i 5 /2014 Plaintiff, Date Purchased: November 2014 -against? SUMMONS EMILY KRIEGEL DEARDEN, Defendant. NOV 3 5 2014 m? We! YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiffs attorney an answer to the complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days a?er service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. The basis of the venue designated is that both parties reside in Westchester County at 82 Pond?eld Road West, Yonkers, New York. Dated: New York, New York November 5, 2014 MEISTER SEELIG FEIN LLP Mitchell Schuster, Esq. Stacey M. Ashby, Esq. 125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel: (212) 655-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff To: Emily Kriegel Dearden 82 Pond?eld Road West Yonkers, New York 6381-00] Doc# 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER KENNETH WALTER DEARDEN, JR., Index No. Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- JURY TRIAL DEMAND EMILY KRIEGEL DEARDEN, If" Defendant. . Plaintiff Kenneth Walter Dearden, Jr. (?Plaintiff? or ?Husband?), by attorneys, Meister Seelig Fein LLP, as and for his Complaint in this action against Defendant 7E9 Emily Kriegel Dearden (?Defendant? or ?Wife?), hereby alleges the following: OF THE CLAIMS 1. This action is brought to redress the sadistic attack by the adulterous Wife on her Husband when she brutally shot him in the back of the head while he was sleeping in bed next to her. 2. Defendant?s senseless attack on her Husband has caused him to suffer both physical and harm, as well as permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations, and severe mental anguish and emotional distress, from which he will never fully recover. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 302(a)(2) because she committed the tortious acts giving rise to this action against Plaintiff in New York. 4. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to CPLR 503 because Plaintiff is a resident of Westchester County. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Kenneth Walter Dearden, Jr., a male resident of Westchester County, is the founder and principal of DW Capital Associates LLC, a Yonkers-based developer of mixed use properties and has been the President of the Yonkers Downtown/Waterfront Business Improvement District, Inc. since May 2008. 6. Defendant Emily Kriegel Dearden, is a female resident of Westchester County and a civilian employee for the New York City Police Department. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. On the night of November 13, 2013, Plaintiff, Defendant and one of their two daughters watched a movie until 10:00 pm. The parties? other daughter was in her room doing homework at the time. 8. At 10:00 pm, Defendant and her daughters went to bed. One of her daughters went to bed in Plaintiffs usual spot in the parties? bed under the assumption that Plaintiff would carry her to her own bed prior to him going to sleep. Shortly before midnight, Plaintiff let the family Rottweiler outside to go to the bathroom in the fenced backyard and then upon letting the dog back into the home, Plaintiff immediately set the home alarm on the dining room alarm pad. 9. After the dog walk, Plaintiff and his dog immediately climbed the stairs to Plaintiffs and Defendant?s bedroom, whereupon Plaintiff, after carrying his daughter to her bedroom, entered his side of the bed next to Defendant. The dog went to sleep in his dog bed, next to Plaintiffs side of the bed. 10. Plaintiff fell asleep immediately. 6381-001 Doc#] 7 11. On November 14, 2013, at approximately 4:00 am, Plaintiff woke up with a searing pain in his jaw. He thought he was having either a heart attack or stroke. 12. When he awoke, Plaintiff also noticed that Defendant was no longer in the bed next the bedroom. 13. Plaintiff observed what appeared to be his wife standing by the bedroom door. 14. After Plaintiff got up and staggered to the bathroom, he noticed that there was blood on his bed. 15. He also noticed that his dog was not in the bedroom. This seemed odd to Plaintiff, as his dog always sleeps in Plaintiffs bedroom. 16. Plaintiff then got dressed and made his way downstairs to look for Defendant so that she could take him to the hospital. 17. Upon entering the downstairs family room, Plaintiff found Defendant lying on the ?oor with her eyes closed. 18. After shaking her, Defendant began to get up, claiming that she had been hit on the head. 19. Plaintiff then entered the kitchen where his cell phone was charging and retrieved it to dial 911. At that point, Plaintiff checked the alarm panel. 20. Plaintiff observed that the alarm had been disarmed using the ?Master Code,? which was known only by Plaintiff and Defendant, from inside the house, approximately ?ve minutes before 4:00 am. 21. Plaintiff went back upstairs to check on his daughters. After Defendant observed Plaintiff return upstairs, she proceeded downstairs to the basement area, later claiming that she did so in order to check on the status of the basement door. 6381-001 Doc#] 7 22. In one of Plaintiff?s daughters? room, Plaintiff saw that his younger daughter was awake and the dog was on her bed. 23. Shortly therea?er, the police arrived and Plaintiff informed them that he thought an intruder had entered the house. 24. The police seemed skeptical of this thought as there were no signs of forced entry, no alarm had sounded, and the Rottweiler had not reacted. 25. After a bit of questioning, the police transported Plaintiff to New York PresbyterianfLawrence Hospital, Bronxville, New York for treatment. Despite Defendant?s prior complaint of being hit in the head, Defendant re?lsed medical treatment and remained in the house. 26. Following a medical examination, it was determined that Plaintiff was shot in the back of his head. Plaintiff was immediately transferred to the Trauma center at Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York. 27. The bullet entered the back of Plaintiff? 5 head at the back of his neck, near the base of his skull, and after passing underneath Plaintiff?s ear canal, it lodged in his left cheek. The bullet passed through one of four carotid arteries in Plaintiffs neck and an adjacent vein. The carotid arteries are the arteries that supply the head and neck with oxygenated blood. 28. Plaintiff was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit so that doctors could perform emergency surgery. Plaintiff underwent three separate surgeries. One surgery was to remove the bullet, another surgery was a failed attempt to repair the severed artery with a stent and the final surgery resulted in a sacri?ce of the severed artery using endovascular coiling, leaving Plaintiff with three working arteries to service his head. 6381-001 Doc#17 29. After learning Plaintiff had been shot in the head, the police returned to the Parties? home. Upon arriving at the home, the police found Defendant laundering her night clothes, as well as other items. It was particularly surprising to learn that Defendant chose to do the laundry at such an early hour on the momng after her husband was taken to the hospital. Equally confusing was the fact that Plaintiff was the one who did the family laundry in large batches on a weekly basis. The police then informed Defendant that her husband had been shot in the head and that they would need to conduct a search of the house. In response, Defendant shockingly asked the police if they had a warrant. 30. After conducting a search of the house, the police con?scated several things. They collected blood stained pillows and bedding from the master bedroom, Defendant?s night clothes that she wore to bed during the night in question that were found already washed and in the dryer, and four pistols, including two Derringer pistols that were found in the basement. Upon an investigation of two of the recovered Derringer pistols, it was determined that the caliber of bullet from the Derringer was consistent with the caliber of bullet that was removed from Plaintiff?s cheek. It was also determined that one of the pistols had been ?red in the past. 32. However, because the bullet removed from Plaintiff? cheek was badly damaged the ballistics investigation was inconclusive. 33. The derringer pistols were antique pieces that were given to Defendant by her parents and were kept in the basement. Plaintiff has never ?red either of the derringer pistols before. 34. During the night in question, before the police arrived, and before Plaintiff realized that he had been shot, Plaintiff confronted Defendant about whether she had attacked 6381-001 Doc#17 him. Defendant denied the accusation but given the suspicious circumstances surrounding Defendant?s behavior, it is clear that she was involved in the attack. 35. The police found no evidence of anyone else being in the house besides the Plaintiff, Defendant and their two daughters and no evidence of any burglary or other motive. 36. Plaintiff?s Rottweiler that always sleeps in his dog bed beside Plaintiff was not in Plaintiff?s bedroom but was in Plaintiff?s daughter?s bedroom and did not alert the family that an ?intruder? was in the house. 37. Plaintiff later questioned his daughter about the dog being in her room and she stated that the Defendant had led the dog into her room. 38. Additionally, the parties? home has a sephisticated alarm system. It was con?rmed by the home security company that the code used to deactivate the alarm on November 1413?, shortly before 4:00 am, was the ?Master? code, used and known only by Plaintiff and Defendant. If an intruder had entered the home after Plaintiff activated the alarm shortly before midnight and before the alarm was deactivated shortly before 4:00 am, the alarm would have sounded instantly and loudly. No doors or windows had been tripped prior to the attack on Plaintiff. 39. Defendant?s conduct following her learning of her husband?s gunshot wound was also alarming. 40. First, she refused medical treatment for the supposed head injury she sustained and she showed no indication of any physical trauma. 41. While Defendant was claiming to have been attacked, purportedly by an intruder, Defendant failed to check on her children to make sure that they were safe; instead she chose to go downstairs to the basement alone, where the pistols were later retrieved by the police. 6381-001 Doc#] 7 42. When questioned about her failure to check on her daughters, Defendant claimed it was not necessary because she knew they were safe. This comment was particularly disturbing and nonsensical given Defendant?s claim that she had been hit on the head by an intruder causing her to lose consciousness. 43. Upon the police returning from the hospital to the parties? home, Defendant was caught washing the clothes that she had worn the night of the shooting and asked if the police had a warrant when they informed her that they needed to conduct a search of her home. 44. After ?nding out that Plaintiff had been shot, Defendant did not contact Plaintiff?s family (and in fact did not contact Plaintiff?s family for 36 hours following the event) but instead placed a call to her lover whom she had been having an on-and-off-again extramarital affair since at least early 2011. 45. The lover, a man from Texas named Warren David Roudebush, had allegedly ?own to New York the day of the shooting. Defendant chose to meet Mr. Roudebush for coffee on the morning of November 15th, before going to the hospital for the ?rst time to visit Plaintiff. 46. Defendant?s desire to maintain a relationship with Mr. Roudebush is what caused Defendant to perform this horri?c act. 47. Plaintiff is aware that Defendant was getting pressure from Mr. Roudebush to end her marriage, as Mr. Roudebush had recently done with his spouse, so that they could be together. 48. With Plaintiff no longer in the picture, Defendant could avoid a contentious divorce, keep the marital home and never admit the marriage in?delity to any family or friends. 49. Plaintiff has been emotionally, mentally and physically damaged by Defendant?s conduct. 6381-001 50. Plaintiff is lucky to be alive. As a result of Defendant?s actions, Plaintiff spent eight days in the hospital, six of those days in the Intensive Care Unit, and had to undergo three separate surgeries, leaving him with permanent numbness, persistent tingling and increased sensitivity to pain in his left cheek and temple. 51. Due to the titanium coils that were inserted in Plaintiff?s neck to block the damaged artery, Plaintiff can never have an MRI above his shoulders and is at an increased risk for a stroke, for which he takes aspirin on a daily basis (and will have to continue doing so for the-rest of his life). 52. As is expected from learning that your wife tried to kill you in order to be with her paramour, Plaintiff has suffered extreme mental anguish as a result of Defendant?s conduct. Plaintiff lives in a constant state of fear and anxiety knowing Defendant?s intentions and the possibility of another (this time successful) attack. 53. Additionally, news coverage of this shooting has publicized this event as a domestic dispute, causing the Plaintiff?s reputation to suffer personally and professionally. CAUSES OF ACTION As and For a First Cause of Action For Assault 54. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 53 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 55. That by reason of the foregoing, Defendant intentionally placed Plaintiff in apprehension of imminent harmful bodily contact. 56. That by reason of the foregoing intentional acts of the defendant, Plaintiff actually experienced imminent harmful bodily contact. 5 7. That said assault took place within a year from the date of this complaint. 6381-001 D0c#] 7 As and For a Second Cause of Action For Battery 58. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation in Paragraphs lthrough 53 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 59. That by reason of the foregoing, Defendant made bodily contact, in the form of a bullet wound, with Plaintiff and said bodily contact was intentional and offensive in nature. 60. That said battery took place within a year from the date of this complaint. As and For a Third Cause of Aeti_or_i For Intentional In?ietion of Emotional Distress 61. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 53 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 62. The aforesaid assault and battery perpetrated by the Defendant amounted to outrageous and extreme conduct. 63. The aforesaid assault and battery perpetrated by the Defendant was intentionally carried out for the purpose of causing physical and emotional injuries to Plaintiff. 64. As a direct result of the foregoing acts by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer bodily injury as well as great mental and emotional distress. As and For the Fourth Cause of Action For Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress 65. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 53 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 66. The aforesaid assault and battery perpetrated by the Defendant was negligently carried out and resulted in severe emotional distress. WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant: a) On the First Cause of Action for Assault, in an amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages to be determined at trial; 6381-001 Doc#1 7 b) d) Dated: On the Second Cause of Action for Battery, in an amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages to be determined at trial; On the Third Cause of Action for Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress, in an amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages to be determined at trial; On the Fourth Cause Of Action for Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress, in an amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages to be determined at trial; and For such other and further and different relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper. New York, New York November 2014 MEISTER SEELIG FEIN LLP MW By: Mitchell Stacey M. Ashby 125 Park Avenue, 7llh Floor New York, New York 10017 (212) 655-3500 6381-001 D0c#17 ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, the undersigned attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, state that I am MITCHELL SCHUSTER, the attorney of record for the Plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing SUMMONS and VERIFIED COMPLAINT in the action within and know the contents thereof; the same if true to my own knowledge, except to those matters therein alleged to be upon information and belief, and to those matters Ibelieve them to be true. The reason this veri?cation is made by me and not the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is not currently in the county where maintain my of?ce. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: Investigation and the facts contained in the Plaintiff?s ?le. MITCHELL SCHUSTER Dated: New York, New York November 5, 2014