NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x CHRISTINA DI MAURO KELLY, Plaintiff, -against- SAGE KELLY, Defendant. Index No. Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial. The basis of the venue is the residence of defendant. SUMMONS -----------------------------------x Defendant resides at 995 Fifth Avenue New York, New York To the above-named Defendant: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the date 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. Dated: October 22, 2014 New York, New York Wii am S. Beslow, Esq. Attorney for plaintiff 623 Fifth Avenue, 24th floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 698-1171 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x CHRISTINA DI MAURO KELLY, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. VERIFIED COMPLAINT SAGE KELLY, Defendant. -----------------------------------x Plaintiff, Christina Di Mauro Kelly, by her attorney, William S. Beslow, as and for her verified complaint, alleges: General Background 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the City, County, and State of New York, and was a resident of the City, County, and State of New York at all material times hereinafter mentioned. 2. Defendant is a resident of the City, County, and State of New York, and was a resident of the City, County, and State of New York at all material times hereinafter mentioned. 3. Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 2, 2002. 4. Plaintiff and defendant have two children, Cameron Kelly (born on April 2, 2004) and Logan Kelly (born on December 10, 2007) (collectively, the "Children"). 5. During the period between the date of Cameron's birth and October 2013, plaintiff was Cameron's primary caregiver. 6. During the period between the date of Logan's birth and October 2013, plaintiff was Logan's primary caregiver. 7. Upon information and belief, in October 2013, defendant commenced a divorce action against plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York ("Divorce Action No. 1.") 6. Defendant did not effectuate service of process in Divorce Action No. 1 within the period of 120 days following the filing of the Summons in the office of the Clerk of New York County. 7. During the period between October 2013 and August 14, 2014, defendant did not disclose to plaintiff that he had commenced Divorce Action No. 1. 8. During the period between October 2013 and June 27, 2014, plaintiff, defendant, and the Children resided together at the parties' residences located at 995 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York (the "NYC Apt") and 143 Northside Drive, Sag Harbor, New York (the "Sag Harbor Residence"). 9. During the period between October 2013 and June 27, 2014, plaintiff continued to be the Children's primary caregiver. 10. On or about June 27, 2014, defendant commenced an action for divorce against plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York ("Divorce Action No. 2''). 2 11. The Verified Complaint in Divorce Action No. 2 requests the Court in such action to award the parties joint custody of the Children. 12. Upon information and belief, as of June 27, 2014, defendant believed that plaintiff was a fit parent, capable of making sound custodial decisions in the best interests of the Children. Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine and Other Illegal Substances a. Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine and Other Illegal Drugs During the Parties' Courtship 13. Plaintiff and defendant met in January 2000. 14. Within several hours after meeting plaintiff, defendant invited plaintiff to return with him to his apartment and, at his apartment, defendant requested plaintiff to join in him in snorting lines of cocaine. 15. During the period of the parties' courtship, defendant snorted lines of cocaine on virtually each occasion in which the parties engaged in leisure activities. 16. During the period of the parties' courtship, defendant snorted lines of cocaine on virtually each occasion in which plaintiff and he socialized with defendant's friends, colleagues, and business associates (including but not limited to, Ben Lorello, John Park, Dung Nguyen, Michael Gerardi, Trip Wolfe, Mark Monroe, and Dan Klock, all of whom also snorted lines of cocaine. (Over the years, the group - of which defendant 3 acted as "ringleader" - expanded to include Mark Hosny, Clay Segall, Bjorn Koch, Mark Beer, Max Newland, Ned Grace, Andrew Fisher, Sloane Angell, David Cooney, Michael Jaffe, and Peter Maiden), all of whom also snorted lines of cocaine and many of whom ingested other illegal drugs with defendant. (These individuals are collectively referred to below as "Defendant's Drug Cohorts.") 17. During the period of the parties' courtship, defendant snorted heroin at The Tavern, a club in Southampton, New York, causing defendant to be so disoriented that without shoes, defendant attempted to walk - barefoot - a distance of several miles from The Tavern to the horne in which the parties were then renting a "share house." 18. The principal source of the cocaine snorted by defendant was a drug dealer, who made "horne deliveries" to defendant at defendant's apartment then located in a building on 57th Street between Lexington and Third Avenues. b. Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine, Special-K, Molly, "Mushrooms", and Ecstasy Following the Parties' Marriage 19. Following the parties' marriage, defendant continued to abuse cocaine, as well as other illegal substances. 20. Commencing in or about 2003, defendant began to purchase cocaine and other illegal drugs from a "high-end" drug dealer, Glen ("Defendant's Drug Dealer"). 4 21. From time to time during the period from in or about 2003 through in or about 2008, defendant purchased ecstasy tablets from Defendant's Drug Dealer. 22. During the period from 2003 through 2008, defendant ingested ecstasy tablets so often and in such large quantities that he developed an inordinate tolerance. On numerous occasions, defendant ingested 2 or 3 ecstasy tablets within a period of several hours. 23. During the period from 2008 through 2014, defendant ingested Molly, a powder form of ecstasy. Defendant routinely stored Molly and cocaine in bags (or, from time to time, in squirt bottles designed and manufactured to contain a nasal spray) in the NYC Apt and in the Sag Harbor Residence, even though Cameron (and, after her birth, Logan) lived in each residence. 24. Commencing in 2011, defendant began to use and abuse a hallucinogenic drug, "mushrooms." Often, defendant ingested enormous quantities of "mushrooms" at the NYC Apt or at the Sag Harbor Residence. On one occasion in the summer of 2011, defendant and several of Defendant's Drug Cohorts (including, but not limited to, Mark Hosny) continually ingested "mushrooms" throughout the day at the Sag Harbor Residence, while the Children were present - a day designated and celebrated by defendant as "Mushroom Day." 5 25. In or about 2007, defendant ingested an extraordinarily dangerous, illegal drug known as "Special-K" at the Sag Harbor Residence, while Cameron was there. Defendant became so discombobulated and depressed - thus, entering and experiencing the phenomenon called a "K-Hole" - that he desperately clung to Cameron for several hours, causing Cameron to have palpable feelings of fear for her father's well-being. 26. Continuously during the period from 2008 through May 2014, defendant abused cocaine, and he routinely purchased cocaine in large quantities from Defendant's Drug Dealer, which defendant often distributed to and shared with a group of individuals - the core of which consisted of Defendant's Drug Cohorts. 27. Upon information and belief, ln May 2014, defendant and several of Defendant's Drug Cohorts engaged in a several-day, illegal "drugfest" in Las Vegas, Nevada 1 in which they ingested various illegal substances, notably cocaine, and engaged in numerous forms of wild behavior, including but not limited to, engagement in sexual relations with prostitutes. 28. During the foregoing period, defendant's abuse of illegal drugs, as well as alcohol, often caused him to "pass out," including, for example, at a group gathering of defendant's associates at Jefferies and Company, Inc., at the Sag Harbor Residence in the summer of 2011 or 2012, to urinate in the 6 parties' bed or on the wall in the parties' bedroom, or to defecate in the parties' bed or on the floor adjacent to the parties' bedroom (on one occasion causing plaintiff and Cameron, who was suffering from the flu but who witnessed a doorman helping to carry defendant into the NYC Apt and depositing him onto the parties' bed, to jointly clean-up defendant's fecal matter) . 29. Throughout this period, defendant regularly stored cocaine and occasionally stored other illegal drugs at the NYC Apt and at the Sag Harbor Residence - generally storing such drugs on a shelf or in a safe located in his closet. On one occasion in the summer of 2011 or 2012, after ingesting cocaine and other illegal drugs during the course of an evening at the Sag Harbor Residence, defendant or Mark Hosny, one of Defendant's Drug Cohorts, inadvertently left a bag of cocaine on a pool table in a downstairs room in the finished basement. Cameron found the bag of cocaine on the following morning and had already placed her index number into the bag when plaintiff discovered what was happening and immediately removed Cameron's finger from the bag, seized the bag from Cameron, and wiped cocaine from Cameron's finger. 1 Upon information and belief, the illegal "drugfest" was part of the 7 Plaintiff's Use of Alcohol and Cocaine 30. On the night they met, defendant introduced plaintiff to cocaine. Prior to her meeting defendant, plaintiff had never used cocaine - or any other illegal drug. 31. During the course of the parties' relationship, defendant importuned plaintiff to join him in ingesting cocaine. 32. Plaintiff's ingestion of cocaine became an indispensable prerequisite to defendant's willingness and interest in engaging in sexual relations with her. 33. During the long stretches of time when plaintiff did not ingest cocaine (i.e., during periods when plaintiff was pregnant or was breastfeeding Cameron or Logan), defendant had virtually no interest in engaging in sexual relations with plaintiff. 34. At the insistence of defendant, the parties' ingestion of alcohol and cocaine became the centerpiece of their social lives, as well as the foundation for their marital relationship. 35. Plaintiff and defendant ingested cocaine together as recently as May 2014. Plaintiff's Role as the Children's Primary Caregiver 35. From the time of the Children's respective births through the commencement of Divorce Action No. 2, plaintiff had been the Children's primary caregiver. celebration for Mark Hosny's bachelor's party. 8 36. From the time of the Children's respective births through the commencement of Divorce Action No. 2, defendant had delegated virtually all child-rearing duties and functions to plaintiff. Defendant's Decision to Commence Divorce Action No. 2 and His Installation of Hidden Recording Devices in the NYC Apt 37. Upon information and belief, by not later than late May 2014, defendant decided to obtain a divorce from plaintiff. 38. Upon information and belief, commencing in or about late May 2014 or early to mid June 2014, defendant ceased to ingest cocaine, Molly, mushrooms, or other illegal drugs so that he might test "negative" in the event a court were to order him to submit to a drug test. 39. In mid-July 2014, defendant caused the installation of hidden recording devices in the NYC Apt (the "Hidden Cameras") 40. During the period from on or about July 16, 2014 through July 30, 2014, the Hidden Cameras detected plaintiff snorting cocaine and ingesting alcohol in the NYC Apt - activities which defendant had encouraged and in which defendant had participated throughout the course of the parties' relationship. 41. During the first two weeks of August, 2014, Cameron and Logan were in the care and custody of defendant at the Sag Harbor Residence. During this period, defendant continually 9 represented to plaintiff that would soon bring the Children back to New York City so that they could be with plaintiff. 42. During this period, and despite his representations to plaintiff, defendant did not return the Children to the NYC Apt. 43. On August 10, 2014, plaintiff advised defendant that she intended to travel that evening to the Sag Harbor Residence so they she could spend time with the Children. Upon information and belief, in order to cause plaintiff not to travel to the Sag Harbor Residence, defendant caused his father to advise plaintiff's mother that if she were travel to the Sag Harbor Residence that evening, defendant would telephone the Sag Harbor Police and request the Police to place plaintiff under arrest. 44. By reason of the foregoing threat, plaintiff did not travel to Sag Harbor to be with the Children on August 10, 11, 12, or 13, 2014. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Custody of the Children 45. Armed with videotapes and still photographs taken by the Hidden Cameras during the last two weeks of July 2014, on August 14, 2014, defendant moved the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 for, inter alia, an award of exclusive possession of the NYC Apt, an order imposing supervision of plaintiff's parental access with the Children, and an order granting defendant temporary custody of the Children (the "Custody Motion"). 10 46. In support of the Custody Motion, defendant submitted an affidavit, sworn to August 2 4, 2 014 ("De f. 's Aff. ") (A copy of Def. Aff. [without exhibits] is attached hereto as Exhibit "1.") 47. Def. Aff. is entirely silent as to defendant's use, let alone abuse, of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K, heroin, Molly, and ecstasy. 48. By ignoring and failing to disclose his use and abuse of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K, heroin, Molly, and ecstasy, defendant defrauded the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 by suggesting falsely that he, himself, did not - and does not- use and abuse alcohol and illegal drugs. 49. By ignoring and failing to disclose his use and abuse of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K, heroin, Molly, and ecstasy, defendant defrauded the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 by falsely suggesting that plaintiff's use of alcohol and cocaine were not condoned and encouraged by him. 50. Def. Aff. suggests falsely to the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 that consumption of alcohol and ingestion of cocaine were not centerpieces of the parties' lifestyle throughout their courtship and throughout their marriage. 51. Def. Aff. suggests falsely that defendant had only recently discovered that plaintiff had consumed alcohol and had ingested cocaine in the NYC Apt while the Children were present, notwithstanding the fact that both plaintiff and he had done so 11 in the NYC Apt continuously since the time of their purchase of it in 2007, as well as in the Sag Harbor Residence continuously since the time of their purchase of it in 2004. 52. Plaintiff responded to Def. Aff. by affidavit, sworn to August 20, 2014 ("Pl. Aff. ") A copy of Pl. Aff [without exhibits] is attached hereto as Exhibit "2.") 53. In response to Pl. Aff., defendant filed a Reply Affidavit, sworn to by him on August 26, 2014 ("Def. Rep. Aff. ") A copy of Def. Rep. Aff. [without exhibits] is attached hereto as Exhibit "3." 54. In Def. Aff., defendant falsely denies that he has used, and abused, alcohol, cocaine, Special-K, mushrooms, Molly, and heroin during the course of the parties' marriage. 55. Defendant made false statements to the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 denying his use and abuse of alcohol, cocaine, and other illegal drugs so as to interfere with and obstruct plaintiff's custodial rights, including her rights of parental access to the Children. 56. As a consequence of defendant's deliberate lies to the Court in Divorce Action No. 2, including defendant's purposeful failure to disclose (in Def. Aff.) and admit (in Def. Reply Aff.) defendant's use and abuse of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, ecstasy, Molly, Special-K, and heroin, the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 severely restricted plaintiff's parental access to the Children. 12 57. Defendant's lies to the Court in Divorce Action No. 2 were intended to cause, caused, and continued to cause plaintiff to suffer extraordinary emotional pain, distress, and suffering resulting from the enormous restriction in her parental access to the Children imposed upon her by the Court in Divorce Action No. 2. 58. Upon information and belief, the Children are experiencing emotional pain and are suffering considerably by reason of defendant's actions and the resulting isolation of them from plaintiff, who had been their primary caregiver since the respective times of their births. 59. The Children's pain and suffering, as described in paragraph 58 above, exacerbate plaintiff's pain and suffering. 60. In or about late September 2014, defendant told plaintiff that he knew there was no reason for supervision of plaintiff's parental access with the Children. 61. Notwithstanding defendant's foregoing statement described in paragraph 60 below, defendant has continued to insist upon the presence of a social worker to supervise plaintiff's exercise of parental access with the Children. 62. Defendant's conduct, as set forth in paragraphs 37 through 61 above, was calculated, designed, conceived, and executed so as to deprive plaintiff of her right to exercise custody of and parental access with the Children, to obstruct plaintiff from exercising her rights as the de facto joint 13 custodial parent of the Children, and to interfere with plaintiff's right to have liberal parental access with the Children, as well as to have the Children maintain their primary residence with her. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows: a. awarding plaintiff damages in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) arising out of and as a consequence of defendant's obstruction of and interference with her right to exercise de facto joint custody of the Children and to have liberal parental access with the Children, as well as to have the Children maintain their primary residence with her; b. awarding plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000); c. granting plaintiff an award of counsel fees; and d. and granting plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York October 22, 2014 The Law Office of William S. Beslow Attorney for plaintiff 623 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 698-1171 14 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ss. : COUNTY OF NEW YORK Christina Kelly, being duly sworn, says: I am the plaintiff in the captioned action. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof. The Verified Complaint is true to my own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. Sworn to before me this 22nd day of October, 2014. WILLI BESLOW Notary Public, State w York No. 02BE6232883 York ounty Commission Expires December 13, 2014 Christina 3 Attorney Certification To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the annexed Verified Complaint and the contentions contained therein are not frivolous as defined in Section 130-1.1, subd. (c) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator. Dated: New York, New York October 22, 2014 William S. Beslow, Esq. Attorney for plaintiff 623 Fifth Avenue, 24th floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 698-1171 2 Client Certification I, Christina Kelly, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have carefully read and reviewed the foregoing Verified Complaint and all of the information contained therein is true and accurate in all respects to the best of my knowledge and understanding. I further certify under the penalty of perjury that neither my attorney nor anyone acting on my attorney's behalf was the source of any of the factual information contained in the Verified Complaint; that I provided all the factual information contained therein to my attorney; and that I understand that in executing the Attorney Certification required by 22 NYCRR 202.16(e), my attorney is relying entirely upon the information provided to him by me and upon my certification that all such information is true and accurate. I further certify that the Verified Complaint contains all information which I provided to my attorney which is relevant thereto and that my attorney has not deleted, omitted, or excluded any such information. Dated: October 22, 2014 New York, New York
United States v. Darryl Whiting, A/K/A G., God, Rah, United States of America v. Sean Dixon, A/K/A Michael White, United States of America v. Renaldo Pledger, A/K/A Eugene Noble, United States of America v. Edwin Carmichael, A/K/A Freedom, United States of America v. William Bowie, A/K/A Cuda, Diamond, United States of America v. Steven Wadlington, A/K/A Mohammed, United States of America v. Kenneth Bartlett, A/K/A Cheyenne, 28 F.3d 1296, 1st Cir. (1994)