Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 20-cv-4165
`
`JUDGE
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon
`
`NINETY SIXTY LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SPRINT SPECTRUM REALTY, COMPANY,
`L.P., as successor to Sprint Spectrum L.P.
`6800 Sprint Parkway
`Overland Park, Kansas 66251
`
`and
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.
`12920 Se 38th St.
`Bellevue, WA, 98006
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`For its complaint against Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, L.P., as successor to Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., (“Sprint”) and T-Mobile USA, Inc., as the successor-in-interest to Sprint (“T-
`
`Mobile”), Plaintiff Ninety Sixty LLC (“Ninety Sixty” or “Plaintiff”), by its attorneys, Ulmer &
`
`Berne LLC, hereby alleges and states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s residential property rights, and the entitlement to the health and safety
`
`of the occupants of the residential townhouse it owns at 317 West 77th Street, New York, NY
`
`(the “Townhouse”), have, over the course of many years, been ignored, surreptitiously abused,
`
`and arrogantly and blatantly violated by a series of gross corporate actions by Sprint, and now T-
`
`Mobile. These actions were without legal justification and have meaningfully harmed Ninety
`
`Sixty and threaten to continue to harm Plaintiff in the absence of equitable relief. The damages
`
`are significant, as is the basis for punitive or exemplary relief.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 25
`
`2.
`
`The Townhouse is immediately adjacent to another residential structure, 319 West
`
`77th Street (the “Adjacent Property”), on which roof Sprint mounted and has thereafter
`
`continuously maintained a cell tower installation. In 2012, Ninety Sixty informed Sprint that
`
`without any right or colorable basis it had installed its cell tower equipment on Plaintiff’s
`
`property and that its antennas had encroached on the Townhouse and were exposing the
`
`Townhouse’s occupants and the public to illegal levels of RF electromagnetic radiation in
`
`violation of permissible federal limits. Ninety Sixty and Sprint resolved the matter by
`
`contractual agreement dated July 31, 2012 (the “2012 Agreement”), signed by Sprint’s John
`
`Beaudoin, Senior Manager, National Contracts, and by which Sprint agreed to remove its
`
`offending equipment and not add equipment going forward that encroached upon the
`
`Townhouse. Plaintiff relied upon Sprint’s compliance with and performance of its contractual
`
`obligations.
`
`3.
`
`In April 2019, Ninety Sixty discovered that Sprint, in breach both of the 2012
`
`Agreement as well as Plaintiff’s independent legal rights, had failed to remove all of its
`
`equipment from the Townhouse, and thereafter also installed and affixed new equipment onto the
`
`Townhouse. Ninety Sixty also discovered that Sprint had caused significant damage to the
`
`Townhouse’s chimney and brickwork, creating danger of a collapse and physical harm to the
`
`Townhouse’s occupants as well as pedestrians walking below. Ninety Sixty promptly notified
`
`Sprint of its wrongful conduct, and demanded that corrective action be taken, including removal
`
`of the cell tower equipment attached to the Townhouse, installation of a protective sidewalk shed
`
`for pedestrian safety, and repair of the damage to the façade. Upon information and belief, as of
`
`April 1, 2020, T-Mobile is the successor in interest to Sprint resulting from its acquisition of
`
`Sprint (Sprint and T-Mobile are collectively referred to as “Sprint”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 25
`
`4.
`
`After a year of Plaintiff’s fruitless and repeated efforts seeking corrective action,
`
`Sprint’s ongoing trespass, encroachment and contractual breaches continue unabated, no
`
`compensation has been paid, and the damages to the Townhouse remain unrepaired and have
`
`continued to accrete. Whereas Sprint did install a sidewalk shed and multistory scaffolding
`
`above the sidewalk in front of the Townhouse, it did so in a negligent and deficient manner, with
`
`the result that (i) despite prior warning of the danger, its scaffolding pulled loose from its façade
`
`anchors and threatened collapse, and (ii) emergency squads from the NYPD and the NYFD
`
`closed the street to cars and the sidewalks to pedestrians, the Townhouse’s occupants were
`
`barred from entering their home, and the NYFD broke down the Townhouse door to attempt to
`
`stabilize Sprint’s faulty structure using ropes tied to furnishings in the Townhouse, with
`
`significant additional damage to the Townhouse and its contents. Sprint’s scaffolding firm has
`
`been charged with legal violations by the City of New York, asserting that it “failed to safeguard
`
`persons and property”, and the scaffolding was “observed in state of collapse causing extreme
`
`and immediately hazardous condition to the public and adjacent properties. FDNY, NYPD and
`
`DOB required onsite.” Multiple government officials have contacted Sprint to express the
`
`public’s concern over its conduct, including the Chair of the NY State Assembly’s Committee on
`
`Corporations, Authorities and Public Commissions, stating, in part, “I consider Sprint’s ongoing
`
`conduct extremely disturbing, especially for a large corporate entity that does business
`
`throughout our State.”
`
`5.
`
`Sprint’s ongoing unauthorized use of the Townhouse for its own business
`
`purposes was undertaken intentionally and surreptitiously, and constitutes both a breach of
`
`contract and a longstanding and continuing trespass. Despite due and repeated demands by
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 25
`
`Ninety Sixty, and written assurance by Sprint that its breaches and encroachments would cease
`
`and be corrected, Sprint has failed to do so.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Ninety Sixty LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
`
`of the State of New York. Ninety Sixty is wholly owned by two members, Gerald Kerner and
`
`Louise Kerner, both of whom, as described immediately below, are citizens of New York.
`
`7.
`
`Non-party Gerald Kerner (“Kerner”) is an individual who is a citizen of New
`
`York, residing at 317 West 77th Street, New York, NY, which is a residential property wholly
`
`owned by Ninety Sixty. Gerald Kerner is the Managing Member and is one of two co-owners of
`
`Ninety Sixty.
`
`8.
`
`Non-party Louise Kerner is an individual who is a citizen of New York, residing
`
`at 317 West 77th Street, New York, NY. Louise Kerner is one of the two co-owners of Ninety
`
`Sixty.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Sprint is, or was until it was acquired by T-Mobile on or about April 1,
`
`2020, a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its
`
`headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, prior to becoming part of Sprint Spectrum Realty
`
`Company, L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P. was jointly owned by Sprint Spectrum Holding Co., LP, an
`
`entity organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and MinorCo. LP, an entity organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant T-Mobile is a publicly traded corporation
`
`which acquired the entirety of Sprint on or about April 1, 2020 and thereby is the successor in
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 25
`
`interest to Sprint’s obligations. T-Mobile is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware
`
`and maintains its headquarters in Bellevue, Washington.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`13.
`
`In particular, because Ninety Sixty is a limited liability company, its citizenship is
`
`measured by the citizenship of its members. Ninety Sixty is wholly owned by two individuals,
`
`Gerald Kerner and Louise Kerner, both of whom are citizens of New York who permanently
`
`reside at 317 West 77th Street, New York, NY. Neither of the Defendants are citizens of New
`
`York.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the
`
`property in question is located in this judicial district and a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims stated herein occurred in this district.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Ninety Sixty is the owner of a single family townhouse at 317 West 77th
`
`Street in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, between West End Avenue and Riverside Drive.
`
`16.
`
`Ninety Sixty entered into a purchase agreement for the Townhouse in October of
`
`2011, the closing took place on March 27, 2012, and in July of 2012 the Kerners moved in.
`
`17.
`
`The Townhouse offered many features which attracted the Kerners’ interest.
`
`Among them, were space for a large family to visit and proximity to Kerner’s offices. In
`
`addition, the house was built with a rooftop garden which has lovely views and is sunny enough
`
`to support gardening. From a safety and privacy standpoint, the entire roof is surrounded by a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 25
`
`high wooden fence and railing. After moving in, the Kerners spent a lot of time on the roof,
`
`putting in planter containers around the perimeter, hauling soil up to the roof to fill the
`
`containers, putting in two apple trees and a wide range of fruit, flowers and vegetable plantings.
`
`18.
`
`The roof of the Adjacent Property (at 319 West 77th Street), which is immediately
`
`to the west, is one story lower than Ninety Sixty’s Townhouse, and because of the high fence
`
`surrounding the Townhouse’s rooftop garden, it is not easy to look over the fence and down onto
`
`the neighboring roof. When Kerner did look down over the fence prior to moving in, he saw a
`
`large installation of electronic equipment, wiring, metal cabinets and antennas on the roof of 319
`
`West 77th Street. He realized that he was looking at a cell phone tower site and he saw that it
`
`had antennas attached to the Townhouse’s chimney, that the antennas were painted to look like
`
`the brickwork and thus were camouflaged; but they were clearly facing in the Townhouse’s
`
`direction and were also aimed at the front bedroom on the top floor.
`
`19.
`
`Kerner was already aware that cell sites generate and give off high levels of
`
`electromagnetic radiation which can pose cancer risks, depending on where the radiation is
`
`aimed, one’s proximity to the antennas and how much power was being pumped into the
`
`antennas, and he was concerned that what he was seeing would pose a health risk to the Kerners,
`
`as well as to their children and grandchildren when they came to stay in New York. The Kerners
`
`identified and hired V-Comm LLC (the “Engineering Firm”), an expert telecommunications
`
`engineering firm specializing in providing engineering services to cell phone carrier companies.
`
`The President of V-Comm LLC at all relevant times has been Dominic Villecco (“Villecco”).
`
`20.
`
`The Engineering Firm performed Electro Magnetic Energy field measurements
`
`and other tests to measure and evaluate the radio frequency (RF) radiation being emitted by the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 25
`
`cell tower site in accordance with regulations issued by the Federal Communications
`
`Commission (“FCC”) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
`
`21.
`
`The Engineering Firm, as part of its testing and analysis, utilized the Narda 8718B
`
`RF Radiation Survey Meter and a shaped E-field isotropic probe equipped to measure power
`
`density in percent of the FCC standard. The Engineering Firm found that the antennas facing
`
`east across the front of Ninety Sixty’s Townhouse – which also were placed by Sprint across the
`
`property line between the two buildings – “show[ed] a predicted maximum [radiation]level of
`
`1312% of the FCC standard, and is thereby non-compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations”
`
`(emphasis added), and further concluded:
`
`The results of the RoofView analysis indicate that the site at 319 West 77th Street is NOT
`in compliance with FCC standards for those areas accessible by the general public at the
`adjacent 317 West 77th Street residence. Anyone who may need to perform typical
`maintenance, cleaning, etc. on the front roof area of 317 West 77th Street will be exposed
`to RF emissions levels which exceed the FCC standard. Therefore, this area represents
`an area whereby the commercial wireless operator must take corrective action.
`
`22.
`
`Two of the images contained in V-Comm’s written report depict the property and
`
`antenna conditions and appearances. In the first image, shown below, the segment in blue
`
`illustrates the area exposed to radiation in excess of legally permitted levels in accordance with
`
`FCC regulations applicable to cell phone antenna sites, which area extends over part of the
`
`Townhouse.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 25
`
`23.
`
`The second photo depicts the camouflaged antennas, which crossed the property
`
`line from the Adjacent Property to the Townhouse, and which exposed Ninety Sixty, the
`
`Kerners, and others to illegally high doses of radiation being emitted by these antennas.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`The Engineering Firm identified Sprint as the operator of this cell site, and
`
`contacted Sprint management to inform them of the problem and the need for corrective action.
`
`In that process, the Engineering Firm learned that Sprint had not done any on-site radiation
`
`measurements when installing, powering up, and using its equipment.
`
`25.
`
`After extended negotiations with senior Sprint personnel, Sprint finally
`
`disconnected and removed the offending antennas and also entered into a written agreement with
`
`Ninety Sixty on July 31, 2012 which provided in part that:
`
`a. Sprint agreed to reimburse Ninety Sixty for the professional fees it paid to the
`
`Engineering Firm;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 25
`
`b. Sprint agreed that it would not place equipment on the Adjacent Property’s
`
`roof which would encroach on the Townhouse, or which violates the rights of
`
`Ninety Sixty.
`
`26.
`
`The 2012 Agreement was signed on Sprint’s behalf by Mr. John E. Beaudoin,
`
`Sprint’s Senior Manager of National Contracts.
`
`27.
`
`Ninety Sixty believed, following the signed agreement with Sprint in July of
`
`2012, that Sprint had complied with the agreement and was continuing to do so.
`
`Sprint Violates the 2012 Agreement and Trespasses on Ninety Sixty’s Property
`
`28.
`
`In the first week of April 2019, a notice was posted along West 77th Street that in
`
`the coming week the street would be closed so that a crane could lift equipment onto the roof of
`
`the Adjacent Property. After seeing that notice, Kerner went up to the Townhouse roof to see
`
`what Sprint was doing and if there was anything new on the roof of 319 West 77th Street.
`
`29.
`
`To his surprise, Kerner was able to see that Sprint had (i) installed new antennas,
`
`painted to be camouflaged, against his chimney, (ii) installed new cabling connecting to those
`
`antennas, and (iii) deployed various pieces of new equipment on the roof of the Adjacent
`
`Property.
`
`30.
`
`During the following week, when the street was closed to traffic and a large crane
`
`was positioned in the street and deployed to hoist equipment onto the roof of the Adjacent
`
`Property, Kerner spoke to the crane’s work crew and was told that Sprint hired them to hoist
`
`new, heavy equipment onto the roof to upgrade the cell site to new 5G technology.
`
`31.
`
` Ninety Sixty again hired the Engineering Firm to obtain their professional
`
`assistance in evaluating Sprint’s activity. The Engineering Firm, after examining photos
`
`provided by Kerner, confirmed that Sprint was proceeding to install 5G cell tower equipment on
`
`the roof of the Adjacent Property.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 25
`
`32.
`
`In April 2019, Villecco telephoned Sprint senior executives with responsibility for
`
`the New York City area and advised them about the 2012 Agreement with Ninety Sixty, which
`
`they said they were unaware of. Villecco, explained that Sprint’s installation of 5G equipment
`
`violated the 2012 Agreement. Villecco also arranged for a site meeting with them on the roof of
`
`the Adjacent Property in May 2019.
`
`33.
`
`The Engineering Firm conducted two site visits, one in May 2019 and one in July
`
`2019. Villecco attended the July 2019 joint site visit. During that visit, Villecco saw new
`
`cabling attached by Sprint to the Townhouse, and new antennas and support fixtures as well,
`
`with the poles and antennas painted a matching color to make them less visible from the street.
`
`He also noticed a large hole that had been punched into the Townhouse’s chimney on the side
`
`facing west and which was thus not visible from the roof of the Townhouse.
`
`34.
`
`Kerner had never been on the roof of the Adjoining Property, and was unable
`
`when standing on the Townhouse’s roof to see the western side of the chimney which faced
`
`away from him, nor the area at the bottom of the wall facing the Adjacent Property.
`
`35.
`
`Subsequent to Villecco’s site visit, Kerner was able to use a selfie stick to extend
`
`his cell phone camera in order to see the areas previously not visible to him, and thereby first
`
`became aware of (i) new equipment attached to the Townhouse by Sprint without permission or
`
`right, and in violation of the 2012 Agreement, (ii) older cabling running the full length of the
`
`Townhouse brick wall and drilled by Sprint into it in multiple places in violation of the 2012
`
`Agreement, (iii) a large metal grill platform with a steel cross girder bolted into the Townhouse’s
`
`wall, which supports Sprint’s heavy equipment cabinets for 5G and other equipment, also
`
`without permission or right and in violation of the 2012 Agreement, and (iv) damage to the
`
`Townhouse’s chimney, wall and façade by Sprint’s illegal actions.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 25
`
`36.
`
`The following photos were taken by Kerner at that time:
`
`
`
`The above photo shows the side and back of the new, painted antenna and support pole, the new
`cabling and box which are attached to the wall, and the damage to the far side of Ninety Sixty’s
`chimney.
`
`37. The below photo shows the cabling on the right which is drilled into the
`
`brickwork and the large support platform supported by a girder which has been bolted into the
`
`north end of the Townhouse’s brick wall.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`38. The next photo, shows another view of the cables and their multiple supports
`
`attached to the Townhouse’s brick wall, as well as the girder bolted to the same wall, with the
`
`grill platform resting upon it.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 25
`
`39. The following photo from Villecco’s site visit to the roof of the Adjacent
`
`Property with Sprint executives in July 2019, shows the girders and cell equipment bolted by
`
`Sprint to the southern end of the Townhouse’s brick wall:
`
`Ninety Sixty Immediately Demanded that Sprint Cease Violations of
`Property Rights and Breaches of the 2012 Agreement
`
`40. Having become aware of Sprint’s blatant violation of the 2012 Agreement by
`
`
`
`appropriating for its cell site use Ninety Sixty’s property without any right or legal basis
`
`whatsoever, Ninety Sixty repeatedly demanded that Sprint vacate its property, comply with the
`
`2012 Agreement and repair and pay for its violations. Likewise, the Engineering Firm so
`
`informed Sprint on behalf of Ninety Sixty.
`
`41.
`
`In or about May and June of 2019, in response to the Engineering Firm’s demand
`
`that Sprint respond as to when it would vacate Ninety Sixty’s property, Sprint informed Villecco
`
`and Ninety Sixty that Sprint was seeking to find an alternative means for attaching and
`
`physically supporting the weight of its equipment on the roof of the Adjacent Property so that it
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 25
`
`would no longer use the Townhouse, but that it would take some time to determine if there was a
`
`feasible engineering alternative. As a result, Sprint failed to commit to any deadline for
`
`removing its encroachment on the Townhouse.
`
`42. Sprint’s initial construction of the cell site on the roof of the Adjacent Property,
`
`and its subsequent upgrades and alterations to that site, required Sprint to obtain government
`
`permits from New York City, including permission from the New York Landmarks Commission.
`
`In order to obtain the required permits, Sprint was required to submit for government review and
`
`approval its detailed plans for the specific layout of equipment and construction of the cell site.
`
`43. Sprint’s cell site on the roof of the Adjacent Property differs in fact from its
`
`construction plans filed as part of its permit applications with the government to obtain the
`
`required approvals, and upon information and belief Sprint has never self-reported nor admitted
`
`to New York authorities that it had deviated and that the permits obtained, including Landmarks
`
`Commission approval, had been secured using materially false and misleading application
`
`materials.
`
`44. During the site visit by Villecco and Sprint executives in July 2019, one of the
`
`Sprint executives volunteered the statement to Villecco that its cell site did not conform to
`
`Sprint’s construction plans.
`
`45.
`
`In June of 2019, Ninety Sixty sent a letter to Sprint’s General Counsel at its
`
`corporate headquarters in Kansas, informing him of the facts and the failures of Sprint’s
`
`executives with responsibility for the New York area to address the problem, and demanding that
`
`Sprint vacate the premises and address the damage that it had caused in violation of the 2012
`
`Agreement, and state and federal law. Sprint’s General Counsel never responded to Ninety
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 25
`
`Sixty’s letter, nor did any other person in the General Counsel’s office, nor has Sprint undertaken
`
`the necessary remedies, and Sprint continues to occupy and illegally use the Townhouse.
`
`Sprint Failed to Remedy the Violations of Rights
`
`46. On information and belief, Sprint proceeded with the installation, launch, and use
`
`of the 5G equipment on the roof of the Adjacent Property and attached its equipment to the
`
`Townhouse, including the new antenna installation, without ever performing any on-site
`
`radiation test or monitoring to determine if it was again exposing the Townhouse, the Kerners
`
`and other members of the public to illegally high levels of electro-magnetic radiation in excess of
`
`permitted federal radiation levels. Sprint’s conduct reflects shocking indifference to its
`
`responsibilities in light of the fact that its senior management was well aware that its installation
`
`at this same location previously exposed the Townhouse, the Kerners and others to illegal
`
`radiation levels at more than 13 times the legal limit when it had also failed to conduct any on-
`
`site testing or monitoring. Now it acted the same way yet again.
`
`47.
`
`In July of 2019, in response to Ninety Sixty’s repeated demands, Sprint removed
`
`and relocated the antennas and cables which had been attached to the Townhouse, but a relocated
`
`antenna remained in proximity to the Townhouse, and was aimed in its direction, and Sprint also
`
`failed to remove all of its other equipment attached to the Townhouse, which persists to date.
`
`Sprint failed to confirm that the antennas were officially turned off until August 20, 2019.
`
`48. The attachment by Sprint of its unauthorized cell equipment, girders, antennas
`
`and supporting fixtures to the chimney, brickwork, and façade of the Townhouse damaged the
`
`chimney and its brickwork and created a hazardous and unsafe condition for the Kerners and for
`
`pedestrians walking on the sidewalk in front of the Townhouse and in front of the Adjacent
`
`Property. Ninety Sixty brought this hazard to Sprint’s attention and demanded remedial action.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 16 of 25
`
`49. During the summer of 2019, Ninety Sixty repeatedly urged Sprint to take
`
`immediate action to protect pedestrians from the unsafe and unstable condition of the chimney as
`
`a result of the damage done by Sprint.
`
`Additional New Unlawful and Damaging Acts by Sprint
`
`50.
`
`In late July and early August of 2019, in order to provide a protective covering for
`
`pedestrians and residents from the danger of falling brickwork and pieces of façade from the
`
`damaged chimney, Sprint erected a sidewalk shed in front of the Townhouse , and also erected
`
`on top of the sidewalk shed a multistory metal scaffold wrapped in netting. The scaffolding was
`
`physically attached by Sprint to the front of the Townhouse by drilling into its façade.
`
`51. On August 28, 2019, Ninety Sixty sent the following communication to Sprint
`
`regarding the scaffolding:
`
`“Now that we are entering the hurricane season in earnest, I would like Sprint to be sure
`that the scaffold set up is secure for purposes of safety in terms of high winds and storms.
`For example, there are two of the large green wood side panels that are sitting on the top
`of the sidewalk bridge which are loose, not attached to anything, and apparently serving
`no useful purpose now or going forward. I assume they were left there as an oversight or
`for the convenience of the installers, and I also assume that it would be a good idea for
`Sprint to remove them, along with any other loose pieces of wood or equipment. Sprint
`should also assure that the scaffold itself is adequately secured for storms so that it does
`not topple over or scrape against the façade and cause damage or injury.”
`
`Emphasis added.
`
`52. Upon information and belief, Sprint ignored this request over a period of more
`
`than 5 months and failed to take adequate measures as the season changed to Fall and then
`
`Winter to assure that the scaffolding was secured against storms so that it would not topple over.
`
`53.
`
` Friday, February 7, 2020, was a windy day and Sprint’s scaffolding, still wrapped
`
`in netting in front of the Townhouse, pulled loose from its façade attachment points and was
`
`swaying dangerously in the wind. The Kerners were not at home. The Police and Fire
`
`Departments were alerted by one or more unknown persons, and when they arrived they
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 17 of 25
`
`evaluated the status of the scaffold, and immediately took emergency action to close off West
`
`77th Street to traffic and the sidewalks to pedestrians for fear that the swaying multistory steel
`
`scaffolding would topple over and injure or kill people.
`
`54. When the Kerners arrived home that afternoon, the street and sidewalks were
`
`blocked off, emergency vehicles were present, and the Kerners were barred from approaching
`
`and entering the Townhouse. The New York Fire Department had broken down the door on the
`
`roof of the Townhouse, destroying the door and door jamb and a section of the exterior wall,
`
`entered the house, and using ropes which they tied at one end to the scaffolding outside the
`
`windows on the upper floors, they tried to stabilize the swaying structure until the scaffolding
`
`could be dismantled. The other ends of the Firemen’s ropes were tied inside the house to
`
`furniture and fixtures. In the process, a window was broken and other damage, both inside the
`
`house and on the roof, was suffered. After the Fire Department departed from the Townhouse
`
`after tying the scaffolding to the inside of the house, the Kerners were permitted to enter the
`
`Townhouse.
`
`55. New York City emergency personnel also contacted Sprint’s scaffolding company
`
`that day and required their immediate presence to dismantle the scaffolding. A work crew
`
`arrived later that afternoon and worked into the night from inside the Townhouse bedrooms to
`
`dismantle and lower the scaffolding and netting.
`
`56. At or about 9 pm on Friday, February 7, 2020, an inspector of the New York City
`
`Building Department who had also come to the scene along with the Fire and Police
`
`Departments, rang the Townhouse doorbell and apologetically stated that he was obliged to post
`
`a Stop Work Order on the front door of 317 West 77th Street as well as violation notices. He
`
`stated that he realized that neither Ninety Sixty nor the Kerners had not done anything wrong and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 18 of 25
`
`were not responsible for what had occurred, but that since the scaffolding had been erected in
`
`connection with their address, that is where the notices had to be posted. The Stop Work Order,
`
`however, applied to both Sprint’s scaffolding contractor and Ninety Sixty.
`
`57. The violation notices stated that Sprint’s scaffolders “failed to safeguard persons
`
`and property”, and the scaffolding was “observed in state of collapse causing extreme and
`
`immediately hazardous condition to the public and adjacent properties. FDNY, NYPD and DOB
`
`required onsite.” The notices state that the fines for the violations are $50,000.
`
`Property Violations and Dangerous Conditions Remain Unresolved by Sprint
`
`58. The chimney and loose brickwork have not been repaired, the scaffolding has not
`
`been re-constructed by Sprint though it is required for safety reasons, and neither Sprint nor its
`
`contractor has paid the fines and secured permission to re-erect the scaffolding. Thus, the unsafe
`
`condition it created persists. The notices of violation and the Stop Work Order remain in place,
`
`attached to the Townhouse front door.
`
`Public’s Interests Impacted by Violations
`
`59. Sprint’s unlawful conduct has not only damaged Ninety Sixty, but it has also been
`
`contrary to the public interest with the result that several New York State officials have voiced
`
`their concerns to Sprint. For example, on March 3, 2020, Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, who is
`
`the Chair in the New York State Assembly’s Committee on Corporations, Authorities and
`
`Commissions, wrote to Sprint’s General Counsel stating in part as follows:
`
`I write to express my growing concern with respect to the installation of Sprint cellular
`equipment upon the premises of 317 West 77th Street in Manhattan. Sprint never
`obtained the right to use that site. Further, despite having received remedial requests and
`objections by the owner of that building, Sprint has subsequently failed to take corrective
`action during the ensuing period, now nearly a year. As Chair of the NYS Assembly’s
`Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, I find Sprint’s initial conduct
`very troubling. I am even more troubled with respect to its knowing and ongoing failure
`to take corrective action.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04165-CM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 19 of 25
`
` …
`
`Just a few weeks ago, scaffolding which Sprint erected in front of the premises and the
`neighboring building posed a public safety hazard, with the result that the NYC police,
`the FDNY and the NYC Department of Buildings were called onsite. They closed the
`street to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and they barred the residents of 317 West 77th
`Street from entering their home, which suffered considerable damage as a result of the
`scaffolding problem. New York City has charged that Sprint’s contractor failed to
`safeguard persons and property, and the scaffolding was “observed in state of collapse
`causing extreme and immediately hazardous condition to the public and adjacent
`properties. FDNY, NYPD and DOB required onsite.” These violations are now
`scheduled for trial.
`
`I consider Sprint’s ongoing conduct extremely disturbing, especially for a large corporate
`entity that does business throughout our State. I have notified the Public Service
`Commission of my serious concern and have advised the homeowners to work with their
`representative in Congress to alert the FCC to this behavior as well.
`
`If any of the foregoing facts are incorrect, I would welcome hear