You are on page 1of 10
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COUNTY COUNTY OF MONROE B. THOMAS GOLISANO, Plaintiff designates Monroe County as the Plaintiff, Place of Trial vs SUMMONS VITOCH INTERIORS LTD, ARTHUR VITOCH and Index No: 2015 - (070 6 NORMA J. GOLDMAN, ‘The basis for venue is Defendants. principal office of Defendants To the above-mentioned 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 Plaintif's attorneys within twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner than by personal delivery within the State. In case of your failure to appear or Answer, Judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: September 25, 2015 Rochester, New York Glenn B, Pezzulo, Esq : CULLEY, MARKS, TANENBAUM & PEZZULO ERP Attorneys for Plaintiff B. Thomas Golisdio 36 West Main Street, Suite 500 Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 546-7830 To: — Vitoch Interiors LTD g 59 Halstead Street . Rochester, New York 14610 Arthur Vitoch 59 Halstead Street Rochester, New York 14610 Norma J. Goldman 724 Lake Road Webster, NY 14580 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COUNTY COUNTY OF MONROE B. THOMAS GOLISANO, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT. “vs VITOCH INTERIORS LTD, ARTHUR VITOCH and Index No: 2015-19106 NORMA J. GOLDMAN, Defendants. Plaintiff, B. Thomas Golisano, by and through his attomeys, Culley Marks Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, LLP, as and for his complaint against Defendants, alleges as follows: 1 Atall relevant times, Plaintiff maintains a residence in the County of Monroe, State of New York. 2. Defendant Vitoch Interiors LTD, is a domestic business corporation ofganizéd ¥ i are « and existing under the laws of the State of New York, County of Monroe with a place of business f at 59 Halstead Street, Rochester, New York 14610. OS 3. Defendant Arthur Vitoch i a resident of the County of Monroe, State 6f New York. 4, The Defendant Norma J. Goldman is a resident of the County of Monroe, State of ‘New York. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEI BREACH OF CONTRACT. ANTS 5. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 4 as if set forth fully herein, 6 On or about November 7, 2013 through December 18, 2013, Plaintiff hired the Defendants to refurbish Plaintiff's luxury MY Laurel. 7. included: 10. Plaintiff hired Defendants, among other things, to prepare a design scheme which Color schemes for new furniture; Interior design, including color schemes; Walll coverings; Floor coverings; Lighting treatments; Window treatments, Also, Plaintiff hired Defendants to: Re-upholster certain existing furniture; Refurbish built-ins and wall panels, including built-in benches. Also, Plaintiff hired Defendants to provide new: Carpeting; Draperies; Lighting fixtures; Paintings; Fumiture; Bed linens. Defendants promised Plaintiff the only fees for services provided would be charged at the rate of $140/per hour. n Defendants promised Plaintiff, regarding the materials or goods provided, that Plaintiff would be charged Defendants’ wholesale cost or Defendants’ preferred price for all goods and materials, thereby implying a substantial savings to the Plaintiff, 12. Plaintiff/paid the Defendants the total amount charged for hourly compensation in the amount of $33,800.00. 13. Plaintiff paid the Defendants the following sums of money for goods and services: 12/18/2013 Norma Goldman $ 40,000.00 12/18/2013 Vitoch Interiors 175,000.00 02/10/2014 Norma Goldman 240,000.00 02/10/2014 Vitoch Interiors 100,000.00 03/26/2014 Vitoch Interiors 75,000.00 03/26/2014 Norma Goldman. 156,000.00 06/04/2014 Norma Goldman 58,867.34 ‘Total Paid $844,867.34 14. As of the result of the above, Plaintiff the Defendants, $811,067.34 for goods and materials, which sum amounts to a 100% mark-up in violation of the Defendants’ promise to charge wholesale or preferred price for materials 15, Plaintiffhas demanded the return of $400,000.00 (See Exhibit A). 16. Plaintiff has performed all of his terms and conditions of the contract. 16. Defendants have breached its contract with the Plaintiff, not only with respect to the overcharges referenced above, but also based upon its deviation from an acceptable standard of care in performance as design professionals 17. Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $400,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS: UN. NT. 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if set forth fully herein. 18. Plaintiff performed of his obligations pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract. 19. Inexchange for Plaintiff's fulfillment of his obligations and duties, and Defendants” breach of the contract, Defendants owe Plaintiff the sum of $400,000.00. fae 20. As arresult of Defendant's failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff the amounts due and owing to him, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $400,000.00 plus interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff B. Thomas Golisano demands judgment against Defendants Vitoch Interiors LTD, Arthur Vitoch and Norma J. Goldman as follows: 1, On the First Cause of Action in the amount of $400,000.00, plus interest; 2. Onthe Second Cause of Action in the amount of $400,000.00, plus interest; 3. Such other and further costs as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: September 25, 2015 Rochester, New York Glemn E. Pezzulo, Esq. Culley Marks Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff 36 W. Main Street, Suite 500 Rochester, NY 14614-1790 (585) 546-7830 EXHIBIT A Culley, Marks, Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law Glenn E. Pezzulo gpezzulo@icullevmarks.com July 27, 2015 Loren H. Kroll, Esq Loren H. Kroll, LLC 950 Reynolds Arcade Building Rochester, NY 14614 Re: B, Thomas Golisano y. Norma Goldman Dear Loren: Following up my prior correspondence with you and our phone conversation, I am providing the following information to you: 1 2, 3 3 Exhibit 14 - GA - Description / Location ; Exhibit 1B- GA - Drawing; Exhibit 2A - Topical Outline of Excessive Costs; Exhibit 3 - Walkthrough interior - Notes 6/24/14 (defects; non-compliance; excess; Jack of knowledge) wiphotos). A review of this documentation indicates that Mr. Golisano wes vastly overcharged for the goods and serves provided contrary to the promises made by Ms. Goldman, Furthermore as a purported professionel consultant, her deviation from an acceptable standard of care and performance is nothing less than dramatic as outlined below: Doing an interior design and refurbishing on # luxury yacht is an unique enterprise. A competent desimer would insist on a superior level of personalized attention to the client, including numerous onsite visits. Creating a lasting impact is important in the overall interior decoration of @ horury yacht, but effective space planning is key to a successful design, 36 Main Suset West, Suite 500 + Rochester, New York 14614 Telephone: 585.546.7850 + Facsimile: 585.546.6185 fax and e-mail aot for service + wrw.culleymacks com Loren H. Kroll, Esq, Loren H. Kroll, LLC Page 2 July 27, 2015, Tn that context, itis necessary for the consultant, as a matter of course, to incorporate free-hand renderings, photo-realistic renderings and auto-CAD drafting to create the design concepts and implementation of the refurbishing plans. The providing of these fimdamental services is necessary to insure that the end result is not only pleasing to the eye, but also functional Additionally, it is necessary for the consultant to work closely with the Captain and crew to insure that all aspects of the interior and implementation of the refiubishing are fully coordinated and supervised. Despite repeated requests by the Captain and Purser, this was never accomplished, Specifically, Ms. Goldman was unaware of and never discussed trends and tendencies regarding innovative materials and technologies to be implemented in oxury yacht interiors. Available light weight solutions and ‘business practices to improve products and reduce costs were not discussed or explained. Also, Ms. Goldman was unaware of the regulatory environment that impacts interior design and refurbishing of a high-end luxury yacht Examples of same of the deficiencies are shown on photos in Exhibit 3, ie. + No. 18 the number of pillows in the sun deck sitting room; + Fading on the couch in the owner's stady; + Defective nailing on the furniture as shown in photograph 19; + Swivel chairs chat restricted the tum radius because of a fixed table as shown in photographs Img. 4692, 4693, and 4694. Nora Goldman and/or Vitoch Interiors were paid the following sums: 12/18/2013 Norma Goldman $ 40,000.00 12/18/2013 Vitoch Interiors 175,000.00 02/10/2014 Norma Goldman 240,000.00 02/10/2014 Vitoch Interiors 100,000.00 Loren H. Kroll, Esq. Loren H. Kroll, LLC Page 3 July 27, 2015 03/26/2014 Vitoch Interiors 03/26/2014 Norma Goldman 06/04/2014 Norma Goldman Total Paid $844,867.34 Ms. Goldman told Mr. Golisano that her only charge/fee would be $140 per hour. A review of the documentation provided indicates that Mr. Golisano was billed approximately 242 hours at $140 an ‘hour for a total hourly compensation of $33,800.00. Also, Mr. Golisano was told, in front of witnesses, that he would pay wholesale costs or Ms. Goldman’s preferred price for all materials, Apparently everything sold to Mr. Golisano appears to be at a 100% markup. Therefore, the computation of damages is as follows: Total Paid $844,867.34 Minus hourly rate paid 33,800.00 Balance $811,067.34 Accordingly, it is based upon the above these figures and analysis that Mr. Golisano feels he is entitled to a refund in the amount of $400,000. ‘Very truly yours, SS Glenn E. Pezzulo ee cc B, Thomas Golisano (w/o encls.)