RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 CITY OF NEW HAVEN : SUPERIOR COURT v J. D.OF NEW HAVEN EAST COASTINENTERTAINMENT, LLC; : ATNEW HAVEN. EAST COASTIN ENTERPRISES, LLC; GABRIEL CANESTRI, JR. : AUGUST 8, 2022 SALVATORE FUSC C&D INVESTMENTS, LLC COMPLAINT, ‘Count One - Violation of General Statutes § 7-284 as to ‘East Coastin Entertainment, LLC 1) The plaintif City of New Haven (the City i @ Connecticut municipality with the powers, including, but not limited to, to provide for police protection and do all other things necessary or desirable for the policing ofthe municipality; to provide for entertainment, amusements, concers, celebrations and cultural activities; and to prohibit, restr license and regulate all public amusements and performances ‘and all places where games may be played. 2) The City recognizes special events as valuable tothe community. In the Ciy's role of both suppor and regulation of special evens, City departments must ‘operate in a consistent and coordinated manner. In order to support and regulate special events, and in observance ofits responsibitis to all people who may attend or be affected by a special event, there are requirements that any person interested in organizing a special event within the City must follow in order to apply for and obtain a special event permit OPPC£0F TH ConPoRATON COUNSEL: IT OF NEWHAVEN 1 Taephoe (0) st 8 Poke 0) SR et Na 83) When any proposed special event requires police involvement, representatives of the New Haven Police Department (NHPD) wll assist and coordinate withthe special event applicant to determine the extent of police involvement rats necessary forthe event to proceed lawrully and safely. 4 ‘Athough the Ciyis responsible for coordinating the necessary municipal services to suppor a lawfully permitted special event, the special event applicants are required to bear the costs of police protection and certain other fixed casts. Those fixed costs are predetermined and publicly avaiable for review by any srospectve Permit applicant. The cost of police protection is determined based on the NHPD's Understanding ofthe scope of the event and on the application materials submitted in support ofthe special permit. '5) The process and requirements to obtain a spe 3 event permit have, at all times discussed herein, been avaliable for public viewing onthe City website 6) The defendant East Coastn Entertainment, LLC is an organization iensed to do business in Connecticut, with its address at 153 Forbes Avenue, New Haven, CT 06512 7) The defendant East Coastin Enterprises, LLC isan organization licensed to do business in Connecticut, with its address at 153 Forbes Avenue, New Haven, CT 0512 8) The defendant C & D investments, LLC isan organization licensed todo business in Connecticut, with its address at 153 Forbes Avenue, New Haven, CT 06512, eee te ceo ocr ote EN 3 Trapt (8) 960988 0) 98k Na 2789) The defendant Gabriel Canestri, Jr. (Canesti) is the managing member of East Coastin Entertainment, LLC and the co-managing member af East Coastin Enterprises, LLC. 410)The defendant Salvatore Fusco (Fusco) is the co-managing member of East Coastin Enterprises, LLC. 11)At all times discussed herein, Canestri and Fusco were actual agents, implied agents, apparent agents, employees, members, andlor servants acting on behalf Cf and in furtherance ofthe interests of East Coastin Entertainment, LLC and East Coastin Enterprises, LLC. 12)Atall times discussed herein, Canestriwas the actual agen, implied agent, apparent agent, employee, member, and/or servant acting on behalf of and in furtherance of the interests of C & D Investments, LLC. 19)Over the course of several years, the defendants have organized and participated in annual motorcycle stunt riding exhibitions within the City (EastCoastin’ events) ‘These exhibitions were illegal and unpermitted 14)Each of the EastCoastin’ events organized by the defendants brought several thousand attendees from throughout the United States, inclding but not limited to members of several other motoreycle clubs and stunt riding clubs 15)Police protection by the NHPD was necessary andor required at each of the. legal motorcycle stunt riding exhibitions from those years. The amount of police protection for each illegal exhibition was determined and fumished by the Chief of Police of the City of New Haven, onrce oe conronsion cast -c1FVaF new nares 3 olga 49 6 8 asin OO HU ar Ne TS16)In the Spring 02021, Canesti had te fist of several meetings with the NHPD. At the first meeting, Lt Jason Rentkowicz, the NHPD District Supervisor for the East Shore-Quinnipiac District, met with Canestr, Canesti announced that he would organize yet another EastCoastn’ event inthe Summer of 2021, but indicated that he would, forthe fist ime, folow the proper channels for organizing «8 special event, including obtaining any necessary special event permits before holding the event 17)Canestr later had another meeting with NHPD Chief Renee Dominguez and Lt Rentkowicz. At the second meeting, Canest was told that his proposed event must be propery permitted and held lawiuly, consistent with existing City polices governing special events. Canestri was futher told that there was an exiting process to obtain a special permit for events in the City, and told how to go about that process 18)At no point was Canestri or any of he other defendants or their agents told that they could organize another EastCoastin event without a special permit from the oly 19)Folowing that second meeting, neither Canesti nor any other defendant or agent ‘ofthe defendants applied fora special permit to hold another EastCoastn’ event. 20)At a third meeting, Canesti met again with Chief Dominguez and Lt. Rentkowiez. Canestri confirmed that he had not obtained a special permit and claimed that he hhad not been able to do so. Canestri made this claim despite the fact that the Telephone (205) 94398 Posie (23) 946762" 2715.City's public porta for applying for special event permits had, at all times, been active and accessible to him and any other member ofthe public. 21)At each meeting, Canestri and other agents of the defendants were told that ifthe defendants proceeded with an unpermitted EastCoastn’ event, it would be illegal and they could face legal action. 22)Aanticipating that the defendants nevertheless intended to proceed with an Lunpermitted and unlawful event, the City and NHPD began developing enforcement and public safety plans. 23)Indeed, following the third meeting, the defendants began advertising “EastCoastin’ 2021" online and on social media, anc continued to do so in the ‘months and weeks leading up to EastCoastin’ 2021. 24)In response to the defendants’ advertising and marketing of the EastCoastin’ ‘event, representatives of the City made several pubic announcements that such ‘event, if held, would be illegal and unpermitted. tn so doing, the City sought to discourage attendance and promote public safety. 25)In the months and weeks leading up to EastCoastin’ 2021, the defendants continued to plan and organize the event, including 2oordinating with other ‘motorcycle clubs and stunt riding clubs who would attend, 26)The defendants, in organizing and promoting EastCoastin’ 2021, sought to draw the attendance of thousands of motorcycle riders ard other people to the event. ‘The defendants despite the fact they did not have tre ability or resources to Control the crovid or provide to the safely of altendess, phone (03; 66 98 asin 8) BIN 21827)Beginning on or about September 24, 2021, and continuing thrcugh and ‘culminating on or about September 25, 2021, the defendants organized and hosted EastCoastin’ 2021, a series of ilegal and unpermitted exhibitions of motorcycle riding and stunts at multiple locations within the City. 28)The defendants held these events in areas throughout New Haven, including at 183 Forbes Avenue and its surrounding properties, in the public right of way on Forbes Avenue, at 400 Sargent Avenue, and in the public right of way on Sargent Avenue. 29)The defendants planned and organized EastCoastin’ 2021 as an illegal, ‘unpermitted event, disregarding the risks to public safely and to the administrative costs and burdens the City would and did incur from controling and policing the ‘event and its attendees, 30)At all times mentioned herein, the defendant East Coastin Ente'tainment, LLC. relied on the City to control the crowds and provide for the safely ofthe attendees of EastCoastin’ 2021, 31)ALall times mentioned herein, the defendant operated, conducted and promoted EastCoastin’ as a public exhibition held within the City of New Haven. '32)The Chief of the NHPD determined that police protection was necessary at the events of EastCoastin’ 2021 '33)The City, through its departments, in particular the NHPD, did provide crowd control and police protection to ensure public safely for both the attendees of Toph (03 108i 0) HORA rh Na 18EastCoastin’ 2021 and the greater public who chose not to attend the event but ‘were still faced with the risks posed by the illegal and unpermitted event. 34)The actions ofthe defendants and their agents caused the City to incur significant monetary costs to provide police protection and pubic safety for EastCoastn’ 2021 35)Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, the defendant is lable tothe City for the ‘c08's of such protection provided for EastCoastn’ 2021 Count Two — Violation of General St 284. East Coastin Enterprises, LLC 1-29) Te allogations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in ul 20)A\ all times mentioned herein, the defendant East Coastin Enterprises, LLC relied on the Cty to contol the crowds and provide for the safety of the attendees of EastCoastn’ 2021 31)At allimes mentioned herein, the defendant operated, conducted and promoted EastCoastn' asa public exhibition held within the City of New Haven, 32)The Chief of the NHPD determined that police protection was necessary at the ‘events of EastCoastin’ 2021 33)The City, through its departments in particular the NHPD, aid provide crowed control and police protection to ensure public safety for both the attendees of axiCoastin’ 2021 and the greater public who chose not to attend the event but ete sil Faced with the risks posed by the ilegal and unpermited event phan 209 36988 Fo 0) HOR Ne IS34)The actions ofthe defendants and their agents caused the City to incur significant ‘monetary costs to provide police protection and public safely for EastCoastn’ 2021 36)Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, the defendant is lable to the City forthe ‘costs of such protection provided for EastCoastin’ 2021, c n of General Statu 28 to Gabriel Canestri, Jr. 41-29) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in full 30)At alltimes mentioned herein, the defendant Canestr relied on the City to control the ciowds and provide for the safety of the attendees of EastCoastn’ 2021 '31)At alltimes mentioned herein, the defendant operated, conducted and promoted EastCoastin’ as a public exhibition held within the City of New Haven, 32)The Chief of the NHPD determined that police protection was recessary at the events of EastCoastin’ 2021, 33)The City, through its departments, in particular the NHPD, did provide crowd control and police protection to ensure public safety for both the attendees of EastCoastin’ 2021 and the greater public who chose not to attend the event but ‘were still faced with the risks posed by the illegal and unpermited event, 34)The actions of the defendants and their agents caused the City to incur significant ‘monetary costs to provide police protection and public safety for EastCoastin’ 2021, Taner 2 86.95 Finke (MTB a Ne TIS35)Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, the defendant is ible to the City for the costs of such protection provided for EastCoastn’ 2021 Count Four 1-2) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in ful 30)At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Fusco relied on the City to control the ‘crowds and provide forthe safety ofthe attendees of EastCoastin’ 2021 31)Atall times mentioned herein, the defendant operated, conducted and promoted EastCoast ‘public exhibition held within the City of New Haven. 32)The Chief of the NHPD determined that police protection was necessary at the events of EastCoastin' 2021. '33)The City, through its departments, in particular the NHPD, did provide crowd ‘control and police protection to ensure public safety for both the attendees of EastCoastin’ 2021 and the greater public who chose not to attend the event but ‘were stil faced wth the risks posed by the illegal and unpermitted event. '34)The actions of the defendants and their agents caused the City to incur significant ‘monetary costs to provide police protection and public safely for EastCoastin’ 2021 '35)Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, the defendant is abe to the City forthe costs of such protection provided for EastCoastin’ 2021, ‘iphone (85 846-958- Fos (05) 946742 ar Ne. 275Count Five n of 1 Statutes § 7-284 as to C&D I Le 1-28) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in fl 20)At all times mentioned herein, the defendant C&D Investments, LLC relied on the City to control the crowds and provide forthe safety of the attendees of EastCoastin’ 2021 31)ALalltimes mentioned herein, the defendant operated, cenducted and promoted £astCoastin’ as a public exhibition held within the City of New Haven £2)The Chief ofthe NHPD determined that police protection was necessary atthe ‘events of EastCoastin’ 2021 433)The Gity, through its departments in particular the NHPC, did provide crowed control and police protection to ensure public safety for bath the attendees of EastCoasti’ 2021 and the greater public who chose not 0 attend the event but wore sil faced wit the risks posed by the ilegal and unpermitted event. 34)The actions ofthe defendants and ther agents caused the City to incur significant ‘monetary costs to provide police protection and public safely for EastCoastin’ 202%. 35)Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284, the defendants lable tothe City for the costs of such protection provided for EastCoastin’ 2021. in Entertainment, LLC 1-29) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in ful, OFFICE OFTHE CORFORATION COUNSEL CITYOF NEW HAZEN 10 Telphonc (03) 16958 asim 28) USP rte 1S30)In addition to organizing EastCoastn’ 2021, the defendant, East Coastin Entertainment LLC, profited from corporate sponsorships and advertising at the ‘event, as well as from monetary contributions by attendees. 31)By not securing a special event permit, the defendant sought to evade the costs that special event applicants would otherwise incur when organizing a properly- permitted special event, including the costs of police protection and other permit, and license fees. '32)The defendant conducted the same proft scheme in all ofthe prior years the Uunpermitted EastCoastin’ events have occurred, each time at the expense of the City 33)The defendant tions andlor practices are unfair and deceptive in that they are: ‘a. Offensive to public policy as established by statute, including, but not limited to, General Statutes § 7-284, New Haven General Ordinances § 17~ 2, et seq., New Haven General Ordinances § 29-1, et seq., as well as the ‘common law, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of public nuisance; '. immoral, unethical, offensive, and/or unscrupulous; ‘©. and caused substantial injury to consumers. 34)The defendant's actions were performed in the conduct of trade or commerce. 35)The defendant's actions caused the City to suffer an ascertainable loss from having to pay for extra police protection, as well as inter-departmental coordination and overtime of other city employees who were involved in planning for enforcement, crowd-control, and public safety Orc oF re conpoeaion course cIF¥or Mw Haran n epone 3658 Fin SUS Ne 7S36)The defendant's actions are in violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices ‘Act, General Statutes § 42-110a, et seq 37)A copy ofthis Complaint has been mailed to the Connecticut Attorney General and Commissioner of Consumer Protection. Count Seven — Violation of CUTPA as to East Coastin Enterprises, LLC 1-29) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and, ‘repeated in fll 30)In addition to organizing EastCoastin’ 2021, the defendant, East Coastin Erterprises, LLC profited from corporate sponsorships and advertising at the event, well as from monetary contributions by attendees. 31)By not securing a special event permit, the defendant sought to evade the costs ‘that special event applicants would otherwise incur when organizing a properly- Permitted special event, including the costs of police protection and other permit and license fees, 32)Tte defendant conducted the same profit scheme in all ofthe prior years the ‘unpermitted EastCoastin’ events have occurred, each time at the expense of the iy, '33)The defendant's actions and/or practices are unfair and deceptive in that they are: ‘2. Offensive to public policy as established by statute, including, but not limited to, General Statutes § 7-284, New Haven General Ordinances § 17- oPrce oF me conronaroncounaeIr¥or aw mare 12 elon 940 8 Fas Se tN 782, et eq,, New Haven General Ordinances § 29-1, et seq., 28 well as the common law, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of public nuisance; ». immoral, unethical, offensive, and/or unscrupulous and caused substantial injury to consumers, 34)The defendant cons were performed inthe conduct of trade or commerce. 35)The defendant's actions caused the City to sufer an ascertainable loss from having to pay for extra police protection, as well a inter-departmental coordination and overtime of ether city employees who were involved in planing for enforcement, crowd-contro, and public safety. 36)The defendant’ actions are in violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-1100, et seq 37)A copy ofthis Complaint has been maied to the Connecticut Attorney General and ‘Commissioner of Consumer Protection Violation of CUTPA as to riot este, J 4-29) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in full. 30}In addition to organizing EastCoastin’ 2021, the defendant, Canesti profited from corporate sponsorships and advertising at the event, as well as from monetary contributions by attendees, 31)By not securing a special event permit the defendant sought to evade the costs that special event applicants would otherwise incur when organizing a properly- OFFIce OFTHE Conronariow counseL CIV OF NEW HAVEN a Fate (43 0 8 Fo 0) BSR Ne TSpermited special event, including the costs of police protection and other permit and license fees. '32)The defendant conducted the same profit scheme inal ofthe prior years the Lunpermitted EastCoastn’ events have occurred, each time at the expense ofthe ci 33)The defendant's actions andlor practices are unfair and deceptive in that they are: a. Offensive to public policy as established by statute, including, but not limited to, General Statutes § 7-284, New Haven General Ordi snces § 17- 2, et seq., New Haven General Ordinances § 29-1, et seq., as well as the ‘common law, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of public 1uisance; ». immoral, unethical, offensive, and/or unscrupulous; c. and caused substantial injury to consumers. 34)The defendant's actions were performed in the conduct of trade or commerce. 35)The defendant's actions caused the City o suffer an ascertainable loss from having to pay for extra police protection, as well as inter-departmental coordination and overtime of other city employees who were involved in planning for enforcement, crowd-control, and public safety 36)The defendant's actions are in violation of Connecticu’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-1 10a, et seq 37)A copy ofthis Complaint has been mailed to the Connecticut Attorney General and Commissioner of Consumer Protection, orrice oF re coRronanION cOUnSELCTY OF NEW HAYEN uu Taher (8506938 Fs Sere Ne 27Count Nine. jolation of CUTPA as to Salvatore Fi 0 1-29) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeatec in full. 30)In addition to organizing EastCoastin’ 2021, the defendant, Fusco profited fom corporate sponsorships and advertising atthe event, as well as from monetary contributions by attendees, 31)By not securing a special event permit, the defendant sought to evade the costs, that special event applicants would otherwise incur when organizing a properly- permitted special event, including the costs of police protection and other permit, and license fees. 32)The defendant conducted the same proft scheme in all ofthe prior years the Lunpermited EastCoastin’ events have occurred, City. 33)The defendant's actions and/or practices are unfair and deceptive in that trey are: 1ch time at the expense of the . Offensive to public policy as established by statute, including, but not limited to, General Statutes § 7-264, New Haven General Ordinances § 17- 2 et seq., New Haven General Ordinances § 29-1, et seq. as well asthe common law. including, but not imited to, the doctine of public nuisance; ». immoral, unethical, offensive, andlor unscrupulous; €. and caused substantial injury to consumers. '34)The defendant's actions were performed in the conduct of trade or commerce. ‘rei oF re conrnario course. Cr OF EN HAYEN 1s Tapon 20) 20958 FeO MET ars Ne 1S35)The defendant's actions caused the City to suffer an ascertainable loss from having to pay for extra police protection, as well as inter-departmental coordination {and overtime of other city employees who were involved in planning for enforcement, crowd-control, and public safety 36)The defendant's actions are in violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a, et seq 37)A copy ofthis Complaint has been mailed to the Connectut Attorney General and Commissioner of Consumer Protection ‘Count Ten = Violation of CUTPA as to C & D Investments, LLC 1-28) The allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1-29 are adopted herein and repeated in full. 20)In adaltion to organizing EastCoastn’ 2021, the defendant, C&D Investments, LLC profited from corporate sponsorships and advertising atthe event, as well as from monetary contributions by attendees. 31)By not securing a special event permit, the defendant sought to evade the costs that special event applicants would otherwise incur when organizing a property- permitted special event, including the costs of police protection and other permit and license fees. 32)The defendant conducted the same profit scheme inal the prior years the Lunpermitted EastCoastin’ events have occurred, each tne atthe expense ofthe oy Topo 09 6H Fins 8 RU Ne. 1533)The defendant's actions and/or practices are unfair and deceptive in that they are: @. Offensive to public policy as established by statute, including, but not limited to, General Statutes § 7-284, New Haven General Ordinances § 17- 2, et seq., New Haven General Ordinances § 29-1, et seq. as well as the ‘common law, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of public nuisance; . immoral, unethical, offensive, and/or unscrupulous; . and caused substantial injury to consumers. '34)The defendant's actions were performed in the conduct of trade or commerce. '35)The defendant's actions caused the City to suffer an ascertainable loss from hhaving to pay for extra police protection, as well as inter-departmental coordination and overtime of other city employees who were involved in planning for ‘enforcement, crowd-control, and public safety. 36)The defendant's actions are in violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices ‘Act, General Statutes § 42-110a, et seq. 37)A copy of this Complaint has been mailed to the Connecticut Attorney General and Commissioner of Consumer Protection, Tahoe 80 36058 asin 05 HED rN 715Wherefore, the plaintif City of New Haven claims rele in the form of: 1. Money damages; 2. Compensatory damages pursuant to General Statutes § 7-284; 3. Compensatory damages pursuant o General Statutes§ 42-110, et 80g, 4. Costs and attomeys' fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110, et oq, 5. Punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110a, et seq, 6. Such equitable relief as the court deems necessary and proper. THE PLAINTIFF, CITY OF NEW HAVEN By: ‘Assistant Corporation Counsel Its Attorney Tepe (0 94688 Fost 20) 9690" Ne 218CITY OF NEW HAVEN : SUPERIOR COURT v. : J.D. OF NEWHAVEN EAST COASTIN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; : ATNEWHAVEN. EAST COASTIN ENTERPRISES, LLC; GABRIEL CANESTRI, JR.; : AUGUST, 2022 SALVATORE FUSCO; (C&D INVESTMENTS, LLC ‘Statement Re: Amount in Demand ‘The amount in demand, exclusive of interest and costs, isin excess of fiteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) THE PLAINTIFF, CITY OF NEWHAVEN BY: van ‘Assistant Corporation Counsel Its Attorney Telphoe (4) 80-958 Fase 20) 969802 N. 27 19