SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER \3 Index No: LORI A. KASOWITZ and MARC E. KASOWITZ, Date Purchased: Plaintiffs, SUMMONS -against- Plaintiffs designate Westchester County COURTYARD FARM, INC. and KRISTEN CAROLLO, as the place of trial. Defendants. Plaintiffs reside at: 37 Oregon Road Bedford Corners, NY. To the above named Defendants: You are hereby summoned to appear in the Supreme Court of the County of Westchester, at the of?ce of the clerk of said Court at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., White Plains, New York, within twenty (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 to serve your answer to the summons and annexed complaint upon counsel for the Plaintiff and ?le same with the Clerk; upon your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you for by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York March 17, 2009 By: 4 Benson, Torres Friedman LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-1700 on NR 1 1 Courtyard Farm, Inc. Kristen Carollo N. 0.2% 111 Bedford Center Road 111 Bedford Center Road CW 1 Bedford Hills, New York 10507 Bedford Hills, New York 10507 at SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER LORI A. KASOWITZ and MARC E. KASOWITZ, Index No: 6 El 0% Plaintiffs, -against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT COURTYARD FARM, INC. and KRISTEN CAROLLO, Defendants. Plaintiffs Lori A. Kasowitz and Marc E. Kasowitz (?Plaintiffs?) as and for their veri?ed complaint against defendants Courtyard Farm, Inc. (?Courtyard") and Kristen Carollo (?Carollo?) (and collectively referred to as "Defendants"), hereby alleges, as follows: 1? 1 7,009 MAR 1. By this action, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages sustained as a resug?g? El??s? 01.10 . PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendants' fraudulent inducement of Plaintiffs to pay $15, 000. 00 to Defendants OF $31; falsely representing that the $15,000.00 would be forwarded to James North ("North") for the care and maintenance of Plaintiffs' horse, Shams Huckleberry Defendants' conversion of Plaintiffs' funds in the amount of $15,000.00; Defendants' unjust enrichment at the Plaintiffs? expense; Defendants' breach of the parties' oral agreement; and Defendants' fraud in billing Plaintiffs for services related to the care and maintenance of Plaintiffs? horses which services were never performed. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the County of Westchester, State of New York and are the owners of Huck. 3. Defendant Courtyard is a domestic corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York with a principal place of business located at 111 Bedford Center Road, Bedford, New York 10507. 4. Defendant Carollo is an individual residing in the County of Westchester, State of New York and, upon information and belief, is the sole majority stockholder and principal of?cer of Courtyard. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to C.P.L.R. 302 in that defendants transact and do business in New York. 6. Venue is proper in Westchester County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503 in that all parties reside in this county. Factual Allegations A. Relying on Defendants? False Representations, Plaintiffs Pay $15,000.00 to Defendants For Huck?s Care and Maintenance 7. Since approximately March of 2008, Plaintiffs have utilized the services of Defendants for boarding, training, maintenance and care of their horses, including Huck. 8. Defendants provided access to Courtyard's premises and use of Courtyard's facilities to horse trainers, including North, who would, at Courtyard's request, provide services to Courtyard's customers. 9. Commencing on or about August of 2008, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that Defendants would bill Plaintiffs for services related to the care and maintenance of Plaintiffs' horses which services were performed by Defendants as well by North. 10. Plaintiffs were billed directly by Defendants and paid Defendants for services allegedly provided by North in training and caring for Plaintiffs' horses. 11. On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff Lori A. Kasowitz advised defendant Carollo that she wished to send Huck to Wellington, Florida with North to participate in a horse show. 12. In response, on January 27, 2009, defendant Carollo advised Plaintiff Lori A Kasowitz by e-mail that "Marylou will email you the invoice for Florida. The eXpenses are the 15,000.00 for [North's] expenses in Florida, training and housing etc." 13. On January 27, 2009, Defendants forwarded an invoice in the amount of $15,000.00 to Plaintiffs for services related to Huck?s care and maintenance related while in Florida with North (the "Invoice"). 14. The Invoice states the $15,000.00 fee was speci?cally for the ?Horse Show Deposit - Florida. 15. On or about January 31, 2009, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a check in the amount of $15,000.00 speci?cally for North?s expenses related to upkeep of Huck while Huck was in Florida (the ?Payment?). 16. At the time the Payment was delivered to Defendants, Plaintiff Marc E. Kasowitz speci?cally advised Defendants that the Payment was to be forwarded to North to pay for Huck?s upkeep and, if Defendants did not forward the Payment to North, the Payment was to be returned to Plaintiffs. 17. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs husband wrote, ?We are giving you the enclosed $15,000.00 check for Huck's upkeep in Wellington based on your representation in the attached invoice #2431 and emails that those funds are going to be sent to James North to be used for expenses relating to Huck in Wellington. If you do not send those $15,000.00 in funds to James for Huck?s expenses, then you must return the funds to us If there are other charges we owe you, we will of course pay them separately. Thanks." 18. Thereafter Defendants failed to forward the Payment to North and instead, contrary to Plaintiffs' instructions and the parties' agreement, retained Plaintiffs' funds for themselves. 19. Defendants knew that the Payment was necessary for North's care and maintenance of Huck while the horse was in Florida. 20. Defendants' knew or were reckless in failing to know that withholding the Payment from North jeopardized the well being of Huck. 21. Plaintiffs have made requests for the return of the Payment and Defendants have failed to do so. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Inducement) 22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 23. As set forth above, prior to January 31, 2009, Defendants made misrepresentations of material facts, and failed to disclose material facts, to Plaintiffs regarding the Payment, including, but not limited to, representations that the Payment would be forwarded directly to North for Huck?s care and maintenance while in Florida. 24. Said representations were made to induce Plaintiffs to make the Payment to Defendants and Defendants knew that said representations were false when made. 25. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Defendants? representations in forwarding the Payment to Defendants. 26. Defendants? wrongful actions have resulted in Plaintiffs' loss of $1 5 ,000.00. 27. Defendants? actions were committed knowingly, willfully and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. 28. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $15,000.00 and are entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) 29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 30. Although Defendants were aware that the Payment was for Huck?s care and maintenance, Defendants deposited and retained the Payment for their own bene?t. 31. Upon learning that Defendants had retained the Payment for their own personal gain, Plaintiffs demanded a refund in the amount of $15,000.00. 32. Defendants have refused to return the monies which were wrongly converted. 33. Defendants? actions constituted an unauthorized assumption of Plaintiffs' property. 34. By reason of the aforesaid wrongful conversion of Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $15,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 35. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 36. By retaining the Payment for their own personal gain, Defendants have received a bene?t belonging to Plaintiffs and Defendants? retention of this bene?t violates fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 37. Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiffs for unjust enrichment in the amount of $15,000.00. 38. By reason of the aforesaid unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $15,000.00. 39. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Oral Contract) 40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 41. Prior to delivering the Payment to Defendants, the parties orally agreed that the Payment would be forwarded by Defendants to North for Huck's care and maintenance while in Florida. 42. Upon information and belief, Defendants' derived a ?nancial bene?t from agreeing to forward the Payment to North for Huck's care and maintenance while in Florida. 43. Plaintiffs relied on the parties' agreement in delivering the Payment to Defendants. 44. Defendants' breached the parties' agreement by depositing the Payment, failing to forward the Payment to North and by retaining the Plaintiffs' $15,000.00. 45. By reason of the foregoing breach of contract, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $15,000.00. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 46. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 47. Between August of 2008 and January 31, 2009, Defendants billed Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs paid Defendants for services allegedly rendered to Huck and Tulip, Plaintiffs' other horse stabled at Courtyard, some of which services were never performed. 48. Defendants represented that all services for which Plaintiffs were billed were performed and said representations were made to induce Plaintiffs to pay Defendants' invoices, and were made falsely with the intent to charge Plaintiffs for services which were never performed. 49. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants' representation that the services which were billed to Plaintiffs were, in fact, actually performed. 50. As a result of Defendants? fraud and deceit of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered monetary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 51. Defendants? actions were committed knowingly, willfully and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 52. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: A. On the First Cause of Action in the amount of $15,000.00 together with an award of punitive damages; B. On the Second Cause of Action in the amount of $15,000.00; On the Third Cause of Action in the amount of $15,000.00; D. On the Fourth Cause of Action in the amount of $15,000.00; On the Fifth Cause of Action in an amount to be determined at trial together with an award of punitive damages; and F. Granting Plaintiffs such other, further and different relief as to this Court seem just and proper, including, but not limited to, an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys' fees. Dated: New York, New York March 17, 2009 Bens n, Torres Friedman, LLP 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-1700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marc E. Kasowitz and Lori A. Kasowitz VERIFICATION Marc E. Kasowitz, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am 3 Plaintiff in the within matter; I have read the within VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the content thereof; that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief and as to those I believe them to be true based upon papers maintained in my of?ce. Dated: New York, New York March 10, 2009 M9 MARC E. KASOWITZ Sworn to before me this 1af?iay of March, 2009 M44 Nata-y Public MITCHELL Fi. SCHRAGE Notary Pubiic, State of New York No. 31 ?4631 487 Qualified in New York County Commission Expires March 30, 203 ALL-STATE 01181-BF - mime-BL - - 07184-WH 800.222.0510 lb . O9 I Index No. Year 20 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER LORI A. KASOWITZ and MARC E. Plaintiffs, - against - COURTYARD FARM, INC. and KRISTEN CAROLLO, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT KASOWITZ. BENSON. TORRES 8c FRIEDMAN LLP Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs 633 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 era?5064700 Pursuant to 22 NY CRR 130-1.1-a, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certi?es that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, (1) the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous and that (2) if the annexed document is an initiatin pl ding, the matter was not obtained through illegal conduct, or that if it was, the attorney or other per sible for the illegal conduct are not participating in the matter or sharing in any fee earned erefrom (ii) if the matter involves potential claims for {5115666 wrongful death, the matter was no bta ne i tolation of 22 NY CRR 1200.41 Dated: Signature . Jos :a . Siegel, Esq. Print Signer?s Na I 1v! Check Applicable Box Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated: Attorney(s) for PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the within is a (certified) true copy of a NOTICE OF entered in the office of the clerk of the within-named Court on 20 ENTRY that an Order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the NOTICE OF Hon. one of the judges of the within-named Court, SETTLEMENT at on 20 at M. Dated: KASOWITZ. BENSON. TORRES 8c FRIEDMAN LLP Attorney(s) for 1633 BROADWAY NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOOIQ Attorney(s) for STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 53: 5 I, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York, and El Attorney's Codi?cation El Attorney's Veri?cation by Af?rmation Check Applicable BOX certify that the annexed has been compared by me with the original and found to be a true and complete copy thereof. say that: I am the attorney of record, or of counsel with the attorney(s) of record, for . I have read the annexed know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following. The reason I make this af?rmation instead of is I af?rm that the foregoing statements are true under penalties of perjury. Dated: (Print signer-?5 name below signature) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 55: being sworn says: I am in the action herein;Ihave read the annexed .ndeuar know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on .3 information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. :a the of lj a corporation, one of the parties to the action; I have read the annexed ijmm know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following: Sworn to before me on 20 (Print signer?s name below signature) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 55: being sworn says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside at Service by Mail El Personal Service Cl Service by Facsimile Cl Service by Electronic Means El Overnight Delivery Service Check Applicable Box On 20 I served a true cepy of the annexed in the following manner: by mailing the same in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, in a post-office or of?cial depository of the U.S. Postal Service, addressed to the address of the addressee(s) indicated below, which has been designated for service by the addressee(s) or, if no such address has been designated, is the last-known address of the addressee(s): by delivering the same personally to the persons at the address indicated below: by transmitting the same to the attorney by facsimile transmission to the facsimile telephone number designated by the attorney for that purpose. In doing so, I received a signal from the equipment of the attorney served indicating that the transmission was received, and mailed a copy of same to that attorney, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, in a post of?ce or of?cial depository of the U.S. Postal Service, addressed to the address of the addressee(s) as indicated below, which has been designated for service by the addressee(s) or, if no such address has been designated, is the last-known address of the addressee(s): by transmitting the same to the attorney by electronic means upon the party?s written consent. In doing so, I indicated in the subject matter heading that the matter being transmitted electronically is related to a court proceeding: by depositing the same with an overnight delivery service in a wrapper properly addressed, the address having been designated by the addressee(s) for that purpose or, if none is designated, to the last-known address of addressee(s). Said delivery was made prior to the latest time designated by the overnight delivery service for overnight delivery. The address and delivery service are indicated below: Sworn to before me on 20 (Prim signer's name below signature)