SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------X
YIN HOU, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs,

v.

OCEAN PRIME, LLC, OCEAN PARTNERS LLC,
OCEAN PARTNERS SPE CORP.,
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
d/b/a DOUGLAS ELLIMAN PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, and OCEAN CAR PARK, LLC,
d/b/a GGMC Parking, LLC,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X







I NDEX NO. _______________


SUMMONS
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the plaintiII`s attorney within 20 days after service of this Summons, exclusive of
the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or
within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of
your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the Complaint. The basis oI the venue is the DeIendants` principal places oI
business and the location in which this cause of action arose.
Dated: January 22, 2013
New York, New York NAPOLI, BERN, RIPKA & SHKOLNIK, LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
New York, New York 10118
(212) 267-3700 (Phone)
(212) 587-0031 (Fax)
-and-
IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
New York, New York 10123
(212) 736-0007 (Phone)
(212) 658-9177 (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/22/2013
INDEX NO. 150612/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2013


Defendants Addresses:
Ocean Prime, LLC
1 West Street
New York, New York 10004

Ocean Partners, LLC
c/o The Moinian Group
530 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, New York 10036

Ocean Partners SPE Corp.
c/o The Moinian Group
530 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, New York 10036

Residential Management Group, LLC
d/b/a Douglas Elliman Property Management
Attn: Brian K. Ziegler
90 Merrick Avenue
East Meadow, New York 11554

Ocean Car Park, LLC
d/b/a/ GGMC Parking, LLC
1651 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10128



1

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
YIN HOU, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OCEAN PRIME, LLC, OCEAN PARTNERS LLC,
OCEAN PARTNERS SPE CORP.,
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
d/b/a DOUGLAS ELLIMAN PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, and OCEAN CAR PARK, LLC,
d/b/a GGMC Parking, LLC,

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





I NDEX NO. ________________


CLASS ACTI ON COMPLAI NT

Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff Yin Hou, by and through his attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, and
Imbesi Christensen, brings this Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") against the Defendants
Ocean Prime, LLC ('Ocean), Ocean Partners, LLC ('Partners), Ocean Partners SPE Corp.
('Partners SPE), Residential Management Group, LLC, d/b/a Douglas Elliman Property
Management ('DEPM), and Ocean Car Park, LLC, d/b/a/ GGMC Parking, LLC ('GGMC
Parking), (collectively 'DeIendants), and on behalI oI himselI and all other similarly situated
residential and commercial tenants (the 'Class Members), of 1 West Street, New York, New
York 10004 ('1 West Street or the 'Premises), and alleges upon information and belief as
follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTI ON

1. Plaintiffs seek damages Ior their claims arising out oI DeIendants` Iailure to
exercise due care to adequately secure, protect or otherwise care for the real property located at 1
West Street subsequent to multiple warnings issued by the National Hurricane Center ('NHC)

2

and by New York City government officials for residents of lower Manhattan prior to
'Superstorm Sandy (also reIerred to as the 'Storm or 'Sandy), and Ior their negligence
relating to their failure to mitigate damages before, during and subsequent to the Storm.
JURI SDI CTI ON AND VENUE

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the corporate Defendants pursuant to
C.P.L.R. 301 because the Defendants are New York limited liability companies and registered
foreign companies that conduct business in New York County.
3. Venue is proper in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503 as the causes of action arose in New York County.
PARTI ES

A. Plaintiffs

4. Plaintiff Yin Hou is a citizen of the State of New York and resides in New York
County and is an individual residing in the building located at 1 West Street, New York, New
York 10004.
5. The class consists of all residential and commercial tenants of 1 West Street on
October 29, 2012.
B. Defendants
6. Defendant Ocean Prime, LLC is a foreign limited liability company registered to
conduct business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 1 West
Street, New York, New York 10004.
7. Defendant Ocean Partners, LLC is a domestic limited liability company formed
and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located

3

at 530 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036. Ocean Partners, LLC, is the Sole Member of
Ocean Prime, LLC.
8. Defendant Ocean Partners SPE Corp. is a Delaware company registered to
conduct business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 1 West
Street, New York, New York 10004. Ocean Partners SPE Corp. is the Manager of Ocean Prime,
LLC.
9. Defendant Residential Management Group, LLC, d/b/a Douglas Elliman Property
Management is a foreign limited liability company formed and authorized to conduct business in
the State of New York. At all relevant times, DEPM was retained by Defendants Ocean, Partners
and Partners SPE to act as the Managing Agent for the property located at 1 West Street, New
York, New York 10004.
10. Defendant Ocean Car Park, LLC, d/b/a/ GGMC Parking, LLC is a domestic
limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its
principal place of business located at 1651 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10128.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Superstorm Sandy

11. On October 22, 2012, the NHC issued its first forecast and public advisories
regarding Superstorm Sandy. Thereafter, NHC issued multiple advisories on a daily basis
regarding the Storm`s strength and its predicted path.
12. By Thursday, October 25, 2012, the NHC warned that the entire eastern coast of
the United States should be closely monitoring the progress of Superstorm Sandy.
13. On Saturday, October 27, 2012, the NHC and National Weather Service ('NWS)
began predicting levels of storm surges in New York and New Jersey as high as eleven (11) feet.

4

National weather forecasters repeatedly warned New York and New Jersey residents that
maximum precautionary measures should be taken.
14. On Sunday, October 28, 2012, at or about 11:00 a.m., Mayor Bloomberg ordered
mandatory evacuation of Zone A. Zone A is an area designated by New York City officials as
low lying areas that are prone to flooding within the five boroughs. In Manhattan, Zone A
includes Battery Park City and sections of the West Side waterfront, Lower East Side, East
Village, and in the financial district in Manhattan.
15. At the mandatory evacuation press conference, Mayor Bloomberg warned
property owners, businesses and residents, especially those in lower Manhattan, that 'tides
overnight tonight will lead to coastal flooding in Zone A..We anticipate the surge will hit a lot
oI low lying areas, and the possibility oI Ilooding will continue into Tuesday aIternoon.
16. At this time, New York residents were also told that all subways, buses and trains
would be shut down at 7:00 p.m., on October 28, 2012.
17. On or about October 29, 2012 the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc., ('Con Ed) shut off power to property located in lower Manhattan including power to 1
West Street.
18. Sandy made landfall in lower Manhattan on Monday, October 29, 2012, at
approximately 7:00 PM.
B. 1 West Street
19. There are approximately five hundred residential apartments and fifteen floors of
commercial space located at 1 West Street. The Premises is capable of accommodating over two
thousand commercial employees/individuals. A parking garage is also located at the Premises.
20. 1 West Street is located in Zone A.
21. At all relevant times, Defendant Ocean was the owner of 1 West Street.

5

22. At all relevant times, Defendants were responsible for preparing for any potential
damage at the Premises caused by Sandy and were responsible for maintaining the Premises in a
safe and habitable condition following the Storm.
23. Sometime after the storm surges caused water to overflow onto the streets of
lower Manhattan on Monday night, October 29, 2012, water entered 1 West Street's basement
and parking garage.
24. Between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., Class Members observed that some basement doors
and windows were left partially open, and witnessed flood waters entering the Premises through
the basement windows and doors left open and/or not properly secured.
25. Defendants failed to take necessary precautions with respect to the basement
doors and windows. Defendants failed to place sandbags, or any other restrictive barriers in front
of the doors or windows of the Premises. DeIendants` failure to take any rudimentary measures
to protect the buildings doors and low-lying windows allowed flood water to enter the building.
26. Defendants also failed to take necessary precautions with respect to the parking
garage entrance. Defendants failed to place sandbags, or any other restrictive barriers in front of
the entrance to the parking garage, and they failed to take any other effective precautions with
respect to the garage entrance and the perimeter of the property. As a result, water freely
accessed the garage and basement of 1 West Street. Vehicles in the parking garage became
submerged in the flood water, causing oil and gasoline from the vehicles to enter and permeate
the flood water.
27. Just days before Sandy, 1 West Street received a delivery of twenty thousand
gallons of heating oil. The oil began leaking because Defendants did not properly secure the
boiler and oil tank.

6

28. During the night of October 29, 2012, Class Members observed a one hundred
yard oil slick flowing out of the garage.
29. Had DeIendants properly secured the Premises` doors and windows the Premises
would not have been flooded.
30. Given the lack of force generated by the storm surge water, the only portions of
the building requiring barriers were the entrances to the building.
31. Defendants failed to construct adequate barriers prior to the storm. Specifically,
the Defendants failed to construct barriers in front of the building's perimeter, including the
parking garage entrance, the building entrances and ground floor windows. As a result of the
DeIendant`s negligence, the building was rendered uninhabitable due to damage caused by
flooding.
32. Given the ample amount of warning, Defendants knew, or should have known,
that water could access the perimeter of the building and cause substantial damage.
33. The flood water and oil from the boiler caused significant damage to the
mechanical and electrical systems for the building. The flood waters and oil posed a serious fire
hazard. Both the New York City Fire Department and the New York State Department of
Environmental Protection ("DEP") had to assist in removing water and oil from the Premises.
34. Additionally, the mixture of oil and flood water caused a toxic environment that
was reported to the DOB. DOB officials subsequently designated 1 West Street as "unsafe" and
no one was permitted to enter. Several days later, the designation was changed to "restricted
use."
35. As a result of the water containing oil and gasoline, diesel fuel fumes spread
throughout the building. The fumes affected the air quality and permeated the entire building,
including apartment floors, walls, ceilings, furniture and clothing located on the Premises.

7

36. 1 West Street was uninhabitable and Class Members were forced to make
alternative living and commercial office arrangements, without the use of their personal property
because of the damage to operational systems, all of which were underground, including heat,
hot water, electric, ventilation, water filtration and sprinkler systems.
37. Defendants` were negligent in their: (1) failure to construct adequate water
barriers around the building's perimeter; (2) failure to lock or secure doors and windows before
the storm; (3) failure to lock or secure doors and windows during the storm which allowed the
flow of additional water after it started entering; (4) failure to secure doors leading to the
basement; and (5) Iilling oI building`s gas tanks prior to the storm. These negligent acts,
individually and together, caused the damage to the mechanical equipment located in the
basement which ultimately rendered the building uninhabitable.
38. The resulting damage was foreseeable and could have been prevented by the
Defendants. Actions as simple as locking ground level windows, boarding up windows and
doors and/or placing sandbags around the doors and windows could have prevented the subject
damages.
C. 1 West Street Post Superstorm Sandy
1. Defendants' I nability to Communicate a Reasonable Re-Occupancy Date
Caused Class Members Additional Damages

39. Following the storm, Defendants consistently provided inaccurate information
and/or conflicting information to Class Members about the return to 1 West Street that prevented
the Class Members` ability to make temporary housing and commercial office arrangements.
40. On or about October 30, 2012, Defendants told Class Members that city officials
prohibited anyone from staying in the building because of the safety concerns, however, Class
Members could return to collect pets and personal belongings. At that time, Defendants told

8

Class Members that they were "working as quickly as possible" to return Class Members to the
building.
41. On or about November 4, 2012, Defendants told Class Members that water was
still being pumped from the flooded basement and garage, but that it was "a slow process
because the water has to be separated from the oil" which requires the 'DOB and the DEP to
perform a safety inspection of the water removal process every 10-15 minutes.
42. On or about November 5, 2012, Defendants provided Class Members with a
"question and answer" sheet. In this memorandum, despite the fact that the apartments and
commercial offices were not habitable, Defendants told Class Members that "the rent is due on
the 1st." However, Defendants stated that they would "waive the late fee for those unable to get
payments in within the usual grace period."
43. On or about November 7, 2012, Defendants informed Class Members that they
were unable to complete the promises set forth in their original time line and that the "best
estimate that we can give you, is that it appears that it could be as much as two more weeks
before we can return residents to their homes." Defendants conditioned this statement by telling
Class Members that the time estimate "could, and probably will change, in either direction"
because "things change on a daily basis."
44. Thereafter, Defendants' email communications to Class Members temporarily
halted and Class Members had no means to obtain accurate information about when they could
return. Many Class Members did not obtain new temporary accommodations because they relied
on Defendants' initial representations and believed that there would only be displaced for two
weeks.
45. Sometime during the week of November 19, 2012, Defendants told Class
Members that the building would re-open on December 1, 2012. Thereafter, on November 26,

9

2012, Class Members were told they could return on November 27, 2012. Later that day, Class
Members were told that could not return until November 28, 2012. On November 28, 2012, at
3:00 p.m., Class Members were told they could not return until November 30, 20120, at 5:00
p.m.
46. Finally, on November 30, 2012, at 4:58 p.m., Defendants told Class Members that
they could return to the residential apartments at 1 West Street late that afternoon.
47. At that time, and continuing through the present, the commercial tenants have
been unable to return to the building and operate their business from their own office space.
D. Re-occupancy conditions at 1 West Street
48. Pursuant to New York law, Defendants were not permitted to charge rent for any
day that the building was not habitable. Upon their return to 1 West Street on November 30,
2012, Class Members were told that their November rent payment would be credited to the
month of December. Defendants did not charge Class Members rent for the first two days of
December.
49. On November 30, 2012, Defendants' emailed Residents and told them that if they
return to their apartments, they must sign a written statement that expressly states that the
Resident "will remain a tenant at 1 West" and not break their current lease. For those individuals
who refused to sign, Defendants required that all personal property be moved out the following
day and apartment keys returned to Defendants immediately, even before the move out.
50. DeIendants` ultimatum was especially difficult for Class Members who had
already provided written notice of a lease termination. By entering 1 West Street on November
30, 2012, and refusing to sign, Class Members had less than twenty-four hours to physically
move out.

10

51. Class Members felt pressure to sign the written statement and therefore relinquish
their prior notice to terminate their leases. Class Members had not been provided time to prepare
for their moves because this was the first notice of such a policy.
52. Defendants informed Class Members who had previously given notice of lease
termination that "If you decide you want to stay, we would be more than happy for you to do so."
53. When one resident who had given lease termination notice two (2) weeks prior to
November 30, 2012, objected to the demand for the return of her keys and move out in twenty-
four (24) hours, she received an email from Defendants, which set forth: "[t]echnically you
terminated your lease back to the date of casualty which [sic] in October 28th. We deem[sic]
surrender of your apartment letter and keys."
a. Uninhabitable Conditions at 1 West Street
54. Although Defendants declared that 1 West Street was habitable on November 30,
2012, the following conditions were present on that date and continue through the present:
a. Frequent and lengthy power outages, including outages for five (5) hours;
b. Persistent loud noise and smell of diesel fuel caused by the generator(s) that
permeates the building;
c. The threat of fire from the generators, and two (2) fires caused by the generators;
d. Limited elevator functioning, including use of only two elevators instead of six
elevators;
e. Frequent and repeated instances of Class Members being trapped in
malfunctioning elevators with non-working 'call and 'Iire buttons in the
elevators;
f. Frequent and repeated instances of Class Members experiencing a 'Iree Iall and
dropping multiple floors in the malfunctioning elevators;

11

g. Lack of water safe for consumption;
h. Brown water and water filled with sediment;
i. Low water pressure and lack of hot water;
j. Loss of heat during power outages;
k. Food spoliation during power outages; and
l. Diminished security during the power outages.

55. Since the Class Members returned to 1 West Street, the building has been
powered by two generators. The diesel fumes from these generators are significant and
permeating throughout 1 West Street. Class Members are concerned for their safety.
56. 1 West Street`s elevator operation has been sporadic, unsafe and unreliable
because the building is now powered by generators. At all relevant times, of the six (6) elevators
at 1 West Street, only two or three elevators have been working. During the first week of
December, the New York Fire Department had to rescue tenants trapped in an elevator.
57. The elevator safety concerns have caused Class Members to file multiple
complaints to the DOB. One complaint reported that on December 4, 2012, a Resident had
experienced a "free fall" in a 1 West Street elevator and that this was the second time that he had
experienced a "free fall."
58. Many Class Members have been fearful to use the elevators since their return to
the building and continue to fear an accident in the elevator. The New York City Fire
Department has responded multiple times to the Premises.
59. During the power outages, the entrances and doors to 1 West Street are unlocked,
allowing anyone to enter the building, and reducing Class Members` saIety. Further, during the
outages Class Members had to navigate the dark stairwells with flashlights.

12

60. Class Members` water is regularly brown and contains sediment and is not safe to
consume. The generators power the water pumps for 1 West Street and those pumps have also
failed. When the water pumps fail, sediment builds up in the water tank causing the water to
appear brown, cloudy with pieces of sediment floating in the water. Class Members are reluctant
to drink, bathe or use the brown water for cooking.
61. Defendants did not warn Class Members in advance that the water pumps would
be turned off for repairs. Class Members have been unable to receive adequate information from
Defendants about the water quality and assurances that it is safe to drink and use.
62. Numerous Class Members complained to Defendants about the conditions, and
expressed concerns regarding the continued 'restricted use posting by DOB, the excessive loud
noise and smell from the generator, the quality of the air and water and safety of the elevators.
63. To date, over seven (7) weeks following re-occupancy, most, if not all, of the
same conditions at 1 West Street remain.
64. To date, there have been two fires, both on commercial floors in the building.
Defendants failed to notify Class Members about the fire on or about December 26, 2012, until
thirty-one (31) hours after the fire.
65. Despite multiple attempts from Class Members to obtain information about
repairs, Defendants continue to fail to provide Class Members with accurate or definitive
answers regarding the status of repairs and when the building will be fully functional.
E. Thirty (30) Day Lease Termination Provision

66. Pursuant to the terms of the 1 West Street lease agreement with Class Members,
should the building remain uninhabitable for a period of thirty (30) days, Class Members may
give notice of lease termination and Defendants must return security deposits and pro-rated rents
for the month in which the casualty occurred.

13

67. The lease provision reads in relevant part:
21. Fire or Casualty: (D) If the Apartment is completely unusable because
of fire, accident or other casualty and it is not repaired in 30 days, You
may give Owner written notice that You end the Lease. If You give that
notice, this Lease is considered ended on the day that the fire, accident or
casualty occurred. Owner will refund Your security deposit and the pro-
rate portion of rents paid for the month in which the casualty happened.

68. Some Class Members expressed concern to Defendants that 1 West Street was re-
opened to Class Members prematurely and before the building was in fact, safely habitable, for
the purpose of avoiding the terms of 21 (D) of the lease. Defendants have not responded to
Class Members` concerns.
69. Defendants have failed to provide Class Members with documentation that the
water quality has been inspected, and is safe for consumption.
70. The continued use of generators to power the building has caused, and is
continuing to cause, Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer additional damages.
CLASS ALLEGATI ONS

71. Plaintiffs bring this Class action pursuant to CPLR 901, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated individuals who were residential and commercial tenants at 1
West Street (i.e. the Premises) from October 29, 2012 to the present.
72. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and
discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or
amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and its affiliates, parents,
subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, its
affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; any judicial

14

officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff;
and class counsel.
73. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As provided in CPLR
901(a)(1), the proposed Class 'is so numerous that joinder oI all members, whether otherwise
required or permitted, is impracticable.
74. As provided in CPLR 901(a)(2), 'there are questions oI law or Iact common to
the Class which predominate over any questions aIIecting only individual members.
Specifically, the common questions of fact or law include whether Defendants were:
a. negligent with respect to its duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe
condition given DeIendants` actual and/or constructive notice oI the potential
flooding from Sandy;
b. negligent in their evaluation and assessment of potential flood damage exposure
given the historical information on the location, including past use, zoning
designation, flood plain designation and events of past flooding, including but not
limited to Hurricane Irene;
c. negligent with respect to the design and construction of the premises based upon
the assessment of potential flood exposure;
d. negligent in their implementation, if any, of flood preventive measures throughout
the premises prior to Sandy on October 29, 2012;
e. negligent with respect to measures taken, if any, to adequately secure the premises
during the four to five days of actual and/or constructive notice of the impending

15

storm from the National Hurricane Center and city officials, and following the
approximate thirty-six hour period subsequent to the Zone A mandatory
evacuation order;
f. negligent in their failure to use sandbags or other flooding barriers across the
entrance to the building and the perimeter of the properties;
g. negligent in their failure to properly secure doors and ground level windows prior
to Sandy;
h. negligent in their failure to properly secure doors and ground level windows as
soon as water began entering the building through the unsecured and/or open
doors and flooding the lobby;
i. negligent in their failure to properly secure and/or leaving completely open, doors
and entrances leading to the basement prior to Sandy;
j. negligent in their failure to create an effective storm preparedness plan, and/or
revise the plan subsequent to Hurricane Irene or in the four to five days following
official warnings;
k. negligent in their failure to properly secure the basement of the building and the
operational, mechanical and electrical equipment located on the premises; and
l. negligent in their failure to mitigate damages immediately after the Storm; and
m. negligent in their determination that 1 West Street was habitable on November
30, 2012, despite the fact that the following conditions were present on that date
and continue through the present:

16

i. Frequent and lengthy power outages, including outages for five (5) hours;
ii. Persistent loud noise and smell of diesel fuel caused by the generator(s)
that permeates the building;
iii. The threat of fire from the generators, and two (2) fires caused by the
generators;
iv. Limited elevator functioning, including use of only two elevators instead
of six elevators;
v. Frequent and repeated instances of Class Members being trapped in
malfunctioning elevators with non-working 'call and 'Iire buttons in the
elevators;
vi. Frequent and repeated instances of Class Members experiencing a 'Iree
Iall and dropping multiple floors in the malfunctioning elevators;
vii. Lack of water safe for consumption;
viii. Brown water and water filled with sediment;
ix. Low water pressure and lack of hot water;
x. Loss of heat during power outages;
xi. Food spoliation during power outages; and
xii. Diminished security during the power outages.
75. As provided in CPLR 901(a)(3), the proposed lead Plaintiff`s representative
claims are typical of those of the proposed Class because the proposed lead Plaintiff`s claims are
based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative party`s grievances, like the
proposed Class grievances, all arise out of the same business practices and course of conduct of

17

Defendants. Further, Plaintiff`s damages arise out of a pattern of nearly identical and repetitive
business practices conducted by the Defendants.
76. As provided by CPLR 901(a)(4), the representative Plaintiff can adequately
represent the Class. No conflict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class
Members or with respect to the claims for relief requested.
77. The representatives and their chosen attorneys are familiar with the subject matter
of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this complaint so as to be
able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representative`s attorneys are competent in the
relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to vigorously represent the Class.
Furthermore, the resources available to counsel ensure that the litigation will not be hampered by
a lack of financial capacity. Plaintiff`s attorneys have sufficient financial resources and are
willing to absorb the costs of the litigation.
78. As provided by CPLR 901(a)(5), a class action is superior to any other available
methods for adjudicating this controversy. The proposed class action is the surest way to fairly
and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from
becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce
transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible, class
treatment presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar issues and claims without
repetitious and wasteful litigation.



18

COUNT I
1HJOLJHQFH3ULRUWR6DQG\V/DQGIDOO
(As against all Defendants)

79. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if
fully set forth herein.
80. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, the owners of 1 West Street, their agents
and employees, owed a duty of care to the Class Members of 1 West Street to maintain the
property in a reasonably safe condition. The owners of 1 West Street, their agents and
employees, owed a duty of care to the Class Members of 1 West Street to reasonably and
adequately secure the premises from damaging flooding.
81. The owners of 1 West Street, their agents and employees, were on actual and/or
constructive notice of the severity of Sandy four to five days before the storm surges impacted
lower Manhattan.
82. Defendants, and their agents and employees, had the opportunity to inspect
existing flood safeguards, obtain additional methods to adequately secure the perimeter of 1
West Street, and/or take reasonable precautions and/or exercise reasonable care such that the
excessive damage from Sandy at 1 West Street could have been avoided because they were on
notice that the storm`s impending landIall.
83. Through the fault and the negligence of the owners of 1 West Street, their agents
and employees, Defendants breached their duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe
condition. Through the fault and negligence of the owners, storm surge water flowed unhindered
into 1 West Street, and into the connecting parking garage, causing extensive damage.
84. As a direct and proximate result oI the owners` negligence, gross negligence
and/or failures to act, the class and subclass members suffered personal property damages and

19

other special damages including, but not limited to, the following: (1) loss of personal property;
(2) diminution of personal property value; (3) loss of income; (4) costs of relocation; (5) loss of
business opportunities and business interruption; and (6) evacuation expenses.
COUNT I I
1HJOLJHQFHDIWHU6DQG\V/DQGIDOO
(As against all Defendants)

85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if
fully set forth herein.
86. At all relevant times herein, the owners of 1 West Street, their agents and
employees, owed a duty of care to the Class Members of 1 West Street to maintain the property
in a reasonably safe condition. The owners of 1 West Street, their agents and employees, owed a
duty of care to the Class Members of 1 West Street to reasonably and adequately mitigate the
damages caused by Sandy and properly repair the damages. Through the fault and the negligence
of the owners of 1 West Street, their agents and employees, Defendants breached their duty to
mitigate the damages caused by flooding and restore the real property to a reasonably safe
condition.
87. Defendants have failed to reasonably and adequately restore the real property to a
reasonably safe condition causing Class Members to experience on a regular basis: (1) Frequent
and lengthy power outages, including outages for 16 hours; (2) Persistent noise and smell of
diesel fuel caused by the generator that permeates the building; (3) Limited elevator functioning,
including use of only one elevator instead of five elevators; (4) Frequent and repeated instances
of Class Members being trapped in malfunctioning elevators; (5) Brown water and water filled
with sediment that is not fit for consumption; (6) Low water pressure and lack of hot water; (7)
Loss of heat during power outages; (8) Diminished security and safety during power outages; (9)

20

Food spoliation during power outages; and (10) Loss of intercom system at all times, allowing
visitors to enter the building and have access to all floors unannounced.
88. As a direct and proximate result oI the owners` negligence, gross negligence
and/or failures to act, the class and subclass members suffered personal property damages and
other special damages including, but not limited to, the following: (1) loss of personal property;
(2) diminution of personal property value; (3) loss of income; (4) costs of relocation; (5) loss of
business opportunities and business interruption; and (6) evacuation expenses.
COUNT I I I
Breach of Warranty of Habitability, RPL 235-b
(As against Defendant Ocean Premises, LLC)

89. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if
fully set forth herein.
(a) Breach from October 30, 2012 through November 30, 2012
90. Defendant 1 West Street impliedly warranted to the Class that the building was fit
for human habitation and further that the Class Members were not subject to any conditions
endangering or detrimental to their life, health or safety.
91. Class Members were prevented from occupying the building from October 30,
2012 through November 30, 2012.
92. Defendant 1 West Street breached the implied warranty of habitability by
negligently preparing for the storm surge by Sandy, despite adequate notice, actual and/or
constructive, and by failing to mitigate damages thereafter, such that extensive damage was
caused to the mechanical and electrical systems, conditions so severe that 1 West Street was not
habitable and Class Members continue to experience untenable conditions.

21

93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant 1 West Street`s actions, Class
members have suffered and continue to suffer damages.
(b) Breach from November 30, 2012, through Present
94. On November 30, 2012, Defendant 1 West Street impliedly warranted to the Class
that the building was fit for human habitation and further that the Class Members were not
subject to any conditions endangering or detrimental to their life, health or safety.
95. On November 30, 2012, 1 West Street was unfit for occupancy and contained
conditions materially affecting the health and safety of Class Members, including but not limited
to: (1) Frequent and lengthy power outages, including outages for 16 hours; (2) Persistent noise
and smell of diesel fuel caused by the generator that permeates the building; (3) Limited elevator
functioning, including use of only one elevator instead of five elevators; (4) Frequent and
repeated instances of Class Members being trapped in malfunctioning elevators; (5) Brown water
and water filled with sediment that is not fit for consumption; (6) Low water pressure and lack of
hot water; (7) Loss of heat during power outages; (8) Diminished security and safety during
power outages; (9) Food spoliation during power outages; and (10) Loss of intercom system at
all times, allowing visitors to enter the building and have access to all floors unannounced.
96. Class Members reasonably expected that the essential functions to be provided at
1 West Street. As a direct result oI DeIendant`s Iailure to provide and maintain the Premises in a
habitable condition, the health and safety of Class Members has been materially affected.
97. Through the fault and the negligence of the owners of 1 West Street, their agents
and employees, Defendants breached their duty to mitigate the damages caused by flooding and
restore the real property to a reasonably safe condition.
98. As a direct and proximate result oI DeIendants` actions, Class Members have
suffered and continue to suffer damages.