FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2015 04:52 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 52641/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2015 TO: BY: ABIGRIL COUSINS 50 Ashton Road Yonkers, NY 10705 GABRIELLA COUSINS 50 Ashton Road Yonkers, NY 10705 Yours, etc., RAN I a KEVIN D. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 150 Grand Street, Suite 502 White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 948*5525 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ?ix WILLIAM DELGADO and CIDALIA DELGADO, INDEX NO.: Plaintiffs, ~against~ COMPLAINT ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, Defendants. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, RANERI, LIGHT, SARRO PLLC, complaining of the defendants, respectfully allege as follows, upon information and belief: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEBALF OF PLAINTIFF, WILLIAM DELGADO 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff William Delgado was a postal mail carrier with a postal mail route in Yonkers, New York. 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, were and still are residents of the State of New York, County of Westchester, City of Yonkers. 3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, were the owners and/or cowowner the premises located.e?: 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705. 4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, occupied the premises located at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705. 5. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, owned a dog which said defendants kept on the premises located at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. l0705. 6. Upon information and belief, on or about June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, owned an Australian Shepherd named ?Sparky? which said defendants kept on the premises looated at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705 and which defendants knew was roaming loose on the property at the time of the attack. 7. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, had been and were negligent in keeping on the premises located at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705, a dog that was not safely, properly, adequately, or thoroughly trained. 8. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, had been and were negligent in keeping on the premises located at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705, a dog that was not properly medically cared for and. did. not receive proper' medical. and veterinary attention, and exhibited viscous propensities towards strangers including other mail/letter carriers. 9. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, had been and were negligent in keeping on the premises located at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705, a dog that was not guarded or controlled, and was allowed to remain loose and unleashed in the presence of the owners on the date of said incident. 10. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, had or should have had knowledge of the dangerous, vicious and unsafe propensities of the aforementioned ?Sparky,? an Australian Shepherd. ll. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, kept the aforementioned dog on the premises owned, occupied and controlled. by defendants, despite the fact that the aforementioned. dog? was not safely, properly, adequately, or thoroughly trained and which had exhibited vicious propensities towards strangers prior to the date of this incident. 12. Upon information and belief, on or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, kept the aforementioned dog (M1 the premises owned, occupied, and controlled by defendants despite the fact that the defendants had or should have had knowledge of the vicious propensities of the aforementioned Australian Shepherd. 13. On or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, kept the aforementioned dog on the defendants? premises with inadequate safeguards deepite the fact that the defendants knew or should have known the aforementioned dog ix; be dangerous, unsafe, vicious, and/or violent. 14. On or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABREELLA COUSINS, kept the aforementioned dog on the defendants? premises with inadequate safeguards, in that the aforementioned dog was not properly leashed, attended, muzzled or otherwise prevented from attacking individuals legally on or near the said premises by the subject Australian Shepherd. 15. On or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, allowed the subject dog to roam free (M1 the property and 1x3 come into contact with outside visitors, including mail carriers, who walked.cn1 or near the defendants? premises to come into direct contact with said animal absent any fencing, leashes or other control devices despite the fact that the aforementioned dog was known or should have been known tX) be dangerous, unsafe, vicious, and/or violent, and subject to personality and temperament changes due to the animal?s pre?existing medical conditions. 16. On or before June 2, 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, failed to warn either by posted sign or oral warning of the presence of said dog and its vicious and dangerous propensities. 17. or before June 2% 2012, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, failed to warn either by posted sign or a warning of the presence of said dog and its vicious and dangerous propensities despite the fact that the defendant knew or should have known that the aforementioned dog was dangerous, unsafe, vicious, and/or violent or subject to personality changes and temperament changes and its prior exhibition of vicious behavior towards strangers Hand prior mail/letter carriers. 18. Upon information and belief, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, knew or should have known of the aforementioned dog?s dangerous, unsafe, vicious, and/or violent propensities by virtue of the fact that the dog had previously exhibited vicious propensities towards other mail carriers, and other strangers prior to the date of plaintiff?s incident yet defendants failed to install any fencing, leashing systems or other safety measures to prevent, minimize or reduce the dog?s interaction with strangers on or near to the subject property prior to this incident. 19. Upon information and belief, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, knew or should have known of the aforementioned dog?s dangerous, unsafe, vicious and/or violent propensities by virtue of the fact that the dog had previously exhibited vicious prepensities to other mail carriers/strangers to the home and on the date of said incident the defendants allowed the dog to roam unleashed within the City of Yonkers, Westchester County, despite city/county statutes, rules, ordinances prohibiting same. 20. Upon information and belief, defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, failed to take proper and necessary safeguards to properly protect members of the general public from unwarranted and unprovoked attacks by the aforementioned animal. 21. On or about June 2, 2012, while the plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, was a lawful visitor/pedestrian upon a City of Yonkers sidewalk and near to the aforementioned residence at 50 Ashton Road, Yonkers, N.Y. 10705, the aforementioned dog, without warning, reason or provocation, violently attacked the body of said plaintiff, causing said plaintiff to attempt to flee get away' front the subject dog and sustain. serious personal injuries as hereinafter alleged. 22. Plaintiff, WILLAIM injuries were solely caused by the carelessness, recklessness, and negligence of the defendants and the plaintiff in no way contributed. to the injuries by any act or omission on his part. 23. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, sustained permanent injuries to his body, all of which caused great pain and suffering on the part of the plaintiff in the past, present and future and required surgical intervention. 24. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, WILLAIM DELGADO, was caused to sustain medical and hospital expenses, lost wages, lost time from work, and loss of other economic benefits both past, present and future. 25. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional amounts of all lower Courts. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, WILLIAM DELGADO Plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs through ?25? as fully set forth hereinabove with the same force .and effect as though the same were fully set forth herein at length. 26. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff, WILLIAM CEREADO, was covered by workers? compensation and/or health insurance and as 52 result of the happening of said accident and incident, plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, undertook medical expenses and lost wages on his behalf to pay for the medical treatment and lost earnings sustained due to defendants? negligence, and as such, the workers? compensation carrier and/or health insurance company, has asserted.a lien with respect to the payments of medical coverage and benefits as a result thereof, all to the detriment of the plaintiff. 27. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, has been caused to sustain lost earnings, lost wages, medical and hospital expenses, both past, present and future, as well as lost wages and medical liens as asserted above. 28. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, CZDALIA DELGADO 29. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and .realleges each and every allegations as set forth in paragraphs of the complaint marked through ?28? of the complaint with the same force and effect as more fully set forth at length herein. 30. That. at all times hereinafter mentioned, including time date the mdthin. occurrence, June 2, 2012, Plaintiff, CIDALIA DELGADO, was and the lawful spouse of Plaintiff, WILLIAM DELGADO, during at all times mentioned and resided with him and continues to do so. 31. That solely as a result of the injuries sustained by WILLIAM DELGADO on June 2, 2012, as a result negligence of the defendants, ABIGAIL COUSINS and GABRIELLA COUSINS, plaintiff, CIDALEA DELGADO, was caused to sustain the loss of services, consortium, love and affection that would normally be given by a husband to a wife. 32. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff, CIDALIA DELGADO, has been damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs WILLIAM DELGADO AND CIDALIA DELGADO, demand judgment against the defendant on the First and Second causes of action in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction; plaintiff, CIDALIA DELGADO, demands judgment against the defendant on the Third cause of action in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction together with costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: White Plains, New York February 17, 2015 K?viN D. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 150 Grand Street, Suite 502 White Plains, New York 10601 (914)948?5525 KEVIN D. ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury and pursuant to CPLR ?2106 as follows: Affirmant is a partner of the firm of RANERI, LIGHT, SARRO PLLC, attorneys for the plaintiffs, in the within action, and as such is fully familiar with all the facts and circumstances heretofore had herein. Affirmant has read the foregoing Complaint and the same is true to affirmant?s own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters affirmant believes it to be true. This verification is made in: an attorney because the plaintiffs do not reside within the county wherein affirmant?s office is located. Dated: White Plains, New York February 17, 2015 D. - DATE 7 Dated?? Febm'a' .2915 3 -.-. -. - - - -: i ;1;:150 Grand Street, "suite 502 . . White P1ains,N?w York 10601.37: '2 i -. L: . 914-94845525(Tel) 1 . - 914943-5505 (Fax) *f ?r 5 '3 sgm?h&?i; . I P'riizit' Signet; I I WILLIAM and .- -- - - pmam '22 894.3%; the? ?rdm'sr??drb page mew-50mknew-roamcerrz?es that, upon informazion and beffef and reasonable inquiry. the camera: 215"min 5