FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE
`COURT
`OF NASSAU
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`JULIA
`
`similarly
`
`BROWN,
`situated,
`
`on behalf
`
`of herself
`
`and
`
`other
`
`individuals
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`against
`
`SARA
`INTONATO;
`and
`INTONATO;
`
`YOGA D/B/A
`SARA
`other
`affiliated
`entities,
`
`SARA
`
`Defendants.
`
`TO THE ABOVE
`
`NAMED
`
`DEFENDANT(S):
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`SUMMONS
`Date
`Filed:
`
`November
`
`10, 2020
`
`Plaintiffs
`COUNTY
`place
`as the
`
`the
`designate
`OF NASSAU
`of
`trial.
`
`Venue
`Lex
`
`loci
`
`is based
`actus.
`
`on:
`
`if
`
`or,
`Answer,
`Plaintiffs'
`on
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY
`of
`a copy
`your
`of Appearance,
`the
`exclusive
`of
`day
`Summons
`is not
`personally
`to appear
`or answer,
`judgment
`Complaint.
`
`of
`
`SUMMONED
`the Complaint
`within
`twenty
`attorney
`(or within
`service
`thirty
`to you within
`delivered
`will
`be taken
`against
`
`to answer
`is not
`served
`
`the Complaint
`with
`this
`Summons,
`the
`service
`days
`after
`(20)
`after
`the
`service
`days
`[30]
`of New York);
`the State
`you
`default
`of
`the
`
`in this
`
`action
`and
`to serve
`of
`this
`Summons,
`complete
`if
`this
`in case
`failure
`in the
`demanded
`
`to serve
`a Notice
`
`of
`
`is
`and
`relief
`
`by
`
`Dated:
`
`November
`Carle
`
`Place,
`
`10, 2020
`New York
`
`LEEDS
`Michael
`
`BROWN LAW,
`A. Tompkins,
`K. Brown
`Jeffrey
`One Old Country
`Road,
`New York
`Carle
`Place,
`Tel:
`873-9550
`(516)
`
`P.C.
`Esq.
`
`347
`
`Suite
`11514
`
`Counsel
`
`for Named
`
`Plaintiff
`
`& Putative
`
`Class
`
`TO:
`
`SARA
`8 Saint
`Huntington
`
`INTONATO
`Dr.
`Andrews
`NY 11743
`
`SARA
`8 Saint
`Huntington
`
`YOGA D/B/A
`Andrews
`Dr.
`NY 11743
`
`SARA
`
`INTONATO
`
`1 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
`COUNTY OF NASSAU
`
`
`
`JULIA BROWN, on behalf of herself and other individuals
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`against
`
`
`
`SARA INTONATO; SARA YOGA D/B/A SARA
`INTONATO; and other affiliated entities,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Named Plaintiff JULIA BROWN (hereinafter “Named Plaintiff”, “Plaintiff Brown” or
`
`“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by her attorneys, alleges the
`
`following upon information and belief, except for those allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which
`
`are based on personal knowledge:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of
`
`SARA INTONATO, SARA YOGA D/B/A SARA INTONATO, and any other affiliated entities
`
`(hereinafter “Defendants” or “Sara Yoga”) with respect to the marketing, sale, and non-essential,
`
`non-medical yoga and mentorship services provided customers throughout the state of New York.
`
`2.
`
`During the Novel Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (“Covid-19”), Defendants were
`
`unable to provide services to its customers.
`
`3.
`
`In accordance with executive orders and other laws and regulations effective during
`
`Covid-19, it was illegal to provide non-essential, non-medical yoga and mentorship services in
`
`person.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`4.
`
`Defendants’ services were covered by executive orders, laws, and regulations in
`
`effective during Covid-19.
`
`5.
`
`It was illegal for Defendants to provide its services to Plaintiff and other customers
`
`given the safety and health issues that were associated with Covid-19.
`
`6.
`
`Despite being unable to provide those services, Defendants continued to collect and
`
`retain monies from its customers.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants have illegally and unjustly profited from Covid-19.
`
`Defendants have refused to offer refunds, discounts, and/or rebates for services that
`
`they were unable to provide as a result of the Novel Coronavirus 2019 (“Covid-19”).
`
`9.
`
`Rather than extend memberships or extend health services to account for the period
`
`of time in which services could not be provided, Defendants elected to retain this money.
`
`10.
`
`In fact, when Plaintiff Brown requested an extension of membership or a return of
`
`the proceeds from the period of time in which the services were unavailable, Defendants refused.
`
`11.
`
`As such, Defendants have violated contract law within New York State, as well as
`
`consumer protection statutes that protect customers like Plaintiff from deceptive and unfair
`
`business practices.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants’ conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General
`
`Business Law §§ 349 and 350.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants have been and continue to be unjustly enriched.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants on behalf of herself and
`
`Class Members who paid for the services during Covid-19 and failed to receive the services.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants market, sell, and provides in-person yoga and mentorship services,
`
`FACTS
`
`
`
`2
`
`3 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`including “in-the-moment skills training.”
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contractual agreement on November 20,
`
`2019 for Defendants to provide those services to Plaintiff in exchange for the payment of $750 per
`
`month for a period of six months.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
` The expiration of that agreement was to occur on May 20, 2020.
`
`During March 2020 and as a result of Covid-19, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued
`
`several executive orders that were aimed at preventing the spread of the virus and protecting the
`
`public at large.
`
`19.
`
`In Executive Order No. 202 et seq., Gov. Cuomo made it illegal for individuals to
`
`congregate indoors for non-essential, non-medical services.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`This order included a quarantine requirement for services provided by Defendants.
`
`Defendants were unable to provide its specialized services in-person to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff Brown requested that Defendants “extend the balance of the unused
`
`package so [Plaintiff Brown] can continue to work with [Sara Yoga] and get all the benefits
`
`associated with your teachings and classes.”
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants refused and instead offered one class as a conciliation.
`
`Defendants then referred the matter to their attorney, Mr. Richard Dubi.
`
`On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff initiated arbitration with the American Arbitration
`
`Association (“AAA”).
`
`26.
`
`On Sept. 3, 2020, Defendants abandoned the arbitration including by refusing to
`
`make timely payment of administration fees owed under AAA’s rules and by refusing to waive
`
`portions of the contract that AAA believed violated due process.
`
`27.
`
`AAA declined to administer the dispute and noted that “either party may choose
`
`
`
`3
`
`4 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`to submit its dispute to the appropriate court for resolution.”
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff hereby submits this dispute to this Court for resolution on behalf of herself
`
`and other similarly situated individuals, including customers that contracted with Defendants and
`
`paid Defendants for services that were not provided during the quarantine associated with the
`
`Covid-19 pandemic.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct
`
`and transact business in the State of New York, contract to supply services within the State of New
`
`York, and supply services within the State of New York.
`
`30.
`
`This venue is proper because Plaintiff resides in Nassau County, and a substantial
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiff and class’s claims occurred in Nassau
`
`County.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, the sale of Defendants’ products in the state of New
`
`York to New York residents exceeds $30,000.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Julia Brown is an individual customer who, at all times material hereto,
`
`was a citizen of Nassau County and purchased services from Defendants in or around September
`
`2019.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Sara Intonato is a resident of Suffolk County and is the principal in
`
`charge of the business that does business as “Sara Yoga”.
`
`34.
`
`Sara Intonato promotes herself as an “Authorized Level 2 Ashtanga Yoga Teacher”
`
`
`
`4
`
`5 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`according to her website (www.sarayoga.com) and other publicly available information.
`
`35. Upon information and belief, Defendants are not registered businesses with the
`
`New York State Department of State but operate as domestic business entities.
`
`36.
`
`Sara Intonato operates her business out of 8 Saint Andrews Dr., Huntington NY
`
`11743.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. As
`
`detailed in this Complaint, Defendants orchestrated deceptive consumer practices that affected
`
`customers, their use, and purchase of Products, their data, their privacy, and their security.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants’ customers were impacted by and exposed to this misconduct.
`
`Accordingly, this action is ideally situated for class-wide resolution, including
`
`injunctive and/or declaratory relief.
`
`40.
`
`The Class is defined as all customers who paid for but failed to receive the services
`
`from Defendants during the Class Period (“Class”).
`
`41.
`
`The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under
`
`CPLR §§ 901, 902 satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality,
`
`typicality, and adequacy because:
`
`42.
`
`Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of customers who are Class Members
`
`described above who have been damaged by Defendants deceptive and misleading practices.
`
`43.
`
`Commonality: The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members which
`
`predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class Members include, but are not
`
`
`
`5
`
`6 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`limited to:
`
`a. Whether Defendants’ misconduct set forth in this Complaint demonstrates
`that Defendants have engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business
`practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of its Products;
`b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and injunctive relief;
`c. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to money damages under the
`schemes and causes of action delineated below as to other Class Members.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the
`
`44.
`
`claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was susceptible to the same
`
`deceptive and misleading conduct and purchased Defendants’ Products. Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`relief under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.
`
`45.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because his interests do not
`
`conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent; his consumer fraud claims
`
`are common to all members of the Class and he has a strong interest in vindicating his rights;
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Brown has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class
`
`action litigation and they intend to vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff has no interests which
`
`conflict with those of the Class. The Class Members’ interests will be fairly and adequately
`
`protected by Plaintiff and his counsel. Defendants has acted in a manner generally applicable to
`
`the Class, making relief appropriate with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members. The
`
`prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent
`
`and varying adjudications.
`
`47.
`
`The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under
`
`CPLR §§ 901, 902 because a class action is superior to traditional litigation of this controversy.
`
`Common issues of law and fact predominate over any other questions affecting only individual
`
`members of the Class. The Class issues fully predominate over any individual issue because no
`
`inquiry into individual conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendants’
`
`
`
`6
`
`7 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`deceptive and misleading practices.
`
`48.
`
` In addition, this Class is superior to other methods for fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy because, inter alia:
`
`49.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
`
`a. The joinder of dozens of individual Class Members is impracticable,
`cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or litigation
`resources;
`b. The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest
`compared with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making it
`impracticable, unduly burdensome, and expensive-if not totally impossible-to
`justify individual actions;
`c. When Defendants’ liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members' claims
`can be determined by the Class and administered efficiently in a manner far
`less burdensome and expensive than if it were attempted through filing,
`discovery, and trial of all individual cases;
`d. This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and appropriate
`adjudication and administration of Class claims;
`e. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this
`action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;
`f. This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members;
`g. The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action
`will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation;
`h. Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of
`separate actions is outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by single
`class action; and
`It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all
`plaintiffs who were induced by Defendants’ deceptive and discriminatory
`consumer practices.
`
`Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under
`
`i.
`
`CPLR §§ 901, 902 because questions of law or fact common to Class Members predominate
`
`over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is superior to
`
`other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members)
`
`
`
`7
`
`8 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`50.
`
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in all the
`
`foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein as to herself and similarly situated individuals that
`
`were Defendants’ customers.
`
`51.
`
`According to the terms of the Agreement, Defendants agreed to provide in-person
`
`yoga and mentorship services to Plaintiff and putative class members.
`
`52.
`
`Defendants failed to provide such services during the period of time in which the
`
`quarantine order was in effect.
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants were unable to provide in-person services
`
`during the period of time in which the quarantine order was in effect.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff, and putative class members, paid for such services and comply with the
`
`Agreement.
`
`55.
`
`Paragraph 21 of the Agreement requires Defendants to extend the period of
`
`potential performance without liability for inability to perform due to force majeure.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants refused to perform or extend the period of performance when requested
`
`by Plaintiff.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have refused to extend the period of
`
`performance for other similarly situated individuals who signed similar service agreements with
`
`Defendants.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff and putative class members have been harmed in terms of lost monies and
`
`lost services.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff seeks the return of all monies paid to Defendants but for which services
`
`were not provided.
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`8
`
`9 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges every allegation contained in all the foregoing
`
`60.
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein as to herself and similarly situated individuals that were
`
`Defendants’ customers.
`
`61.
`
`New York General Business Law (GBL) § 349 declares unlawful “[d]eceptive acts
`
`or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service
`
`in this state . . .”
`
`62.
`
`The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes recurring, unlawful deceptive
`
`acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and Class Members seek
`
`monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
`
`Defendants, enjoining it from omitting material information from customers and inaccurately
`
`describing, labeling, marketing, and promoting the Products.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`There is no other adequate remedy at law.
`
`Defendants intentionally refused to extend services to its customers, including
`
`Plaintiff, because of Covid-19.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants intentionally withheld monies, refunds, discounts, and rebates from
`
`customers, including Plaintiffs, who paid for services during Covid-19, but failed to receive such
`
`services.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants refused to extend the time for performance for Plaintiff and refused
`
`to offer a refund, discount, or rebate for services that were not able to be provided.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants deceptive and misleading practices constitute a deceptive act and
`
`practice in the conduct of business in violation of GBL § 349(a) and Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`have been damaged thereby.
`
`
`
`9
`
`10 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ recurring deceptive acts and practices, Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members are entitled to monetary, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
`
`injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendants’
`
`unlawful conduct, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief for all Class Members who which to receive
`
`extended services from Defendants.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges every allegation contained in all the foregoing
`
`63.
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`GBL § 350 provides, in part, as follows:
`
`False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or
`in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.
`
`GBL § 350(a)(1) provides, in part, as follows:
`
`65.
`
`The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of
`the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity
`if such advertising is misleading in a material respect. In determining
`whether any advertising is misleading, there shall be taken into account
`(among other things) not only representations made by statement, word,
`design, device, sound or any combination thereof, but also the extent to
`which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such
`representations with respect to the commodity or employment to which
`the advertising relates under the conditions proscribed in said
`advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual . . .
`
`Defendants frequently marketed its services to customers, like Plaintiffs, that failed
`
`66.
`
`to disclose the true nature of the arrangements related to its services.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants omitted from its marketing and promotional materials – and through
`
`disseminations to its customers – that its services were unavailable under the controlling quarantine
`
`
`
`10
`
`11 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`orders in effect during Covid-19.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants failed to disclose that its services could not be legally offered during
`
`the period of the quarantine orders.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ conduct constitutes multiple, separate violations of GBL § 350.
`
`Defendants made the material omissions described in this Complaint in
`
`Defendants’ advertising and disseminations to customers.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants’ material omissions were substantially uniform in content, presentation,
`
`and impact upon customers at large. Moreover, all customers purchasing the services were and
`
`continue to be exposed to Defendants’ materially deceptive advertising because of omissions.
`
`72.
`
`
`
`As a result of Defendants’ recurring, unlawful deceptive acts and practices, Class Members
`
`are entitled to monetary, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
`
`restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendants’ unlawful
`
`conduct, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members in the Alternative)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
`
`73.
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other customers, brings a common law claim for
`
`unjust enrichment.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants’ conduct violated state law because they could not lawfully provide
`
`their services during the period in which the quarantine order was in effect, yet Defendants retained
`
`the monies from contracts entered into between Defendants and its customers.
`
`
`
`11
`
`12 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members conferred financial benefits and paid substantial
`
`compensation to Defendants for the services, which were not made available by Defendants.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants’ unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint allowed Defendants
`
`to knowingly realize substantial revenues from selling its services at the expense of, and to the
`
`detriment or impoverishment of Plaintiff and Class Members, and to Defendants’ benefit and
`
`enrichment.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants have thereby violated fundamental principles of justice, equity, and
`
`good conscience.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants failed fully compensate its customers like Plaintiffs for the services it
`
`could not provide.
`
`80.
`
`Under New York’s common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable
`
`for Defendants to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ payments.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from such
`
`overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`may seek restitution.
`
`
`
`82.
`
`
`
`DEMANDS FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, pray for judgment as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`
`
`Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying
`
`Plaintiff as the representative of the Class under CPLR §§ 901, 902;
`
`Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants,
`
`12
`
`13 of 14
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 11:29 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 612776/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`directing Defendants to correct its practices and to comply with customer
`
`protection statutes;
`
`Awarding monetary damages, including treble damages;
`
`Awarding punitive and treble damages;
`
`Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and expenses incurred in this
`
`action, including reasonable allowance of attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s
`
`attorneys and experts, and reimbursement of Plaintiff’s expenses; and
`
`(f)
`
`Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Dated: Nov. 10, 2020
` Carle Place, NY
`
`LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
`
`________________________________
`Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
`One Old Country Road, Suite 347
`Carle Place, NY 11514
`(516) 873-9550
`mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and Putative Class
`
`13
`
`14 of 14
`
`