throbber
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`Exhibit
`
`"C
`
`

`

`. --
`-.-
`-....
`...--
`.
`.
`,
`-
`...
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`-,
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`- -
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`Index No.
`
`VERIFIED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SUPREME
`OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COURT
`COUNTY
`OF SUFFOLK
`---------------------------------x
`NANCY
`
`CORCIONE,
`
`:
`
`: :
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`ALICE
`MIREZ
`n/k/a/
`RCG MORTGAGE
`SOLUTIONS,
`CATHERINE
`LEE DOMINICI,
`
`ALICE
`
`TORTORA,
`LLC,
`
`and
`
`Esq.,
`
`__________-___________.-----
`
`------x
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`NANCY
`
`CORCIONE,
`
`by
`
`and
`
`through
`
`her
`
`attorneys,
`
`SOKOLSKI
`
`&
`
`ZEKARIA,
`
`P.C.,
`
`hereby
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`as its complaint
`
`against
`
`Defendants,
`
`the following:
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`At
`
`all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Nancy
`
`Corcione
`
`("Plaintiff')
`
`was
`
`and still
`
`is a
`
`natural
`
`person
`
`residing
`
`in the County
`
`of Suffolk,
`
`within
`
`the State of New York.
`
`2.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Defendant
`
`Alice
`
`Mirez
`
`n/k/a
`
`Alice
`
`Tortora
`
`was
`
`and
`
`still
`
`is a natural
`
`person
`
`of Nassau,
`
`("Mirez")
`
`residing
`
`in the County
`
`within
`
`the State ofNew
`
`York.
`
`3.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`was and
`
`still
`
`is the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`unit/house
`
`commonly
`
`known
`
`as 131 Constantine
`
`Way,
`
`Mount
`
`Sinai, New
`
`York
`
`11766
`
`("subject
`
`premises").
`
`4.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG Mortgage
`
`Solutions,
`
`LLC,
`
`("RCG")
`
`was
`
`and
`
`still
`
`is a foreign
`
`limited
`
`liability
`
`corapâñy
`
`ens6ng
`
`by and under
`
`the
`
`virtue
`
`of
`
`the
`
`laws
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of New Jersey, maintains
`
`its principal
`
`place
`
`of business
`
`in the
`
`County
`
`of Suffolk
`
`within
`
`the State
`
`of New York,
`
`and is registered
`
`with
`
`The New York
`
`Department
`
`of State
`
`as doing
`
`business
`
`in County
`
`of Suffolk.
`
`1
`
`3 of
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`NYSCEF :
`0 6 /17 / 2 02 0
`RECEIVED
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`5.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein
`
`up to and including
`
`April
`
`2020,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG was
`
`acting
`
`as a mortgage
`
`broker
`
`for
`
`the Plaintiff.
`
`6.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Defendant
`
`Catherine
`
`Lee
`
`Dominici
`
`("Dominici")
`
`was
`
`and
`
`still
`
`is a natural
`
`person
`
`residing
`
`in the State
`
`of New York
`
`and
`
`maintaining
`
`her principal
`
`place
`
`of business
`
`in the County
`
`of Suffolk
`
`within
`
`the State
`
`of New York.
`
`7.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Catherine
`
`Lee Dominici
`
`is an attomey
`
`duly
`
`licensed
`
`to practice
`
`law
`
`in the State
`
`of New York,
`
`having
`
`been
`
`admitted
`
`to pradee
`
`in New York
`
`State
`
`in 2010,
`
`and her Attorney
`
`Registration
`
`Number
`
`is 4772539.
`
`8.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`at all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein
`
`up to and
`
`incInding
`
`May
`
`2020,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`was
`
`acting
`
`as attorney
`
`for Plaintiff
`
`in
`
`relation
`
`to the
`
`purchase
`
`of
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF THE FACTS
`
`9.
`
`At
`
`all
`
`times
`
`relevant
`
`herein,
`
`Defeñdst
`
`Mirez
`
`was
`
`and
`
`is attempting
`
`to
`
`sell
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`as
`
`10.
`
`A contract
`
`of
`
`sale
`
`was
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`on
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`between
`
`purchaser
`
`and Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`as seller
`
`for
`
`the subject
`
`premises.
`
`11.
`
`Under
`
`the
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of
`
`sale Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`to purchase
`
`the Subject
`
`premises
`
`for
`
`a price
`
`of $580,000
`
`with
`
`a seller's
`
`concession
`
`of $21,500,
`
`this
`
`contract
`
`was
`
`executed
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`a down
`
`payment
`
`of $10,000
`
`form Plaintiff
`
`to be held
`
`in escrow.
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`January
`
`30, 2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale and granted
`
`Plaintiff
`
`45 days
`
`(till March
`
`15)
`
`to
`
`secure
`
`a mortgage,
`
`and
`
`set
`
`the
`
`initial
`
`closing
`
`date
`
`for
`
`this
`
`transaction
`
`for Febmaty
`
`15 with
`
`no
`
`"time
`
`is of
`
`the
`
`essence"
`
`language
`
`included.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`then
`
`placed
`
`$10,000
`
`into
`
`escrow
`
`with
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`attomey
`
`as a
`
`deposit
`
`per
`
`the January
`
`30, 2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale.
`
`14.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`then went
`
`about
`
`securing
`
`a mortgage
`
`for
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`through
`
`her
`
`then mortgage
`
`broker
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG.
`
`2
`4 o f
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`15.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RGC by and through
`
`its agent Evan Russell
`
`began
`
`seeking
`
`to
`
`secure
`
`a mortgage
`
`on
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`secured
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Federal
`
`Housing
`
`Administration
`
`("FHA
`
`Mortgage").
`
`16.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`sent all documentaüon
`
`necessary
`
`to shop for a
`
`mortgage
`
`to Defendant
`
`RGC in a timely
`
`manner,
`
`but
`
`due to ongoing
`
`delays
`
`on the part
`
`of Defendant
`
`RGC a mortgage
`
`loan
`
`commitment
`
`was not
`
`received
`
`in a timely
`
`manner.
`
`17.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`an amendment
`
`was made
`
`to
`
`the
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale on February
`
`12, 2020
`
`changing
`
`the closing
`
`date to February
`
`28, 2020.
`
`18.
`
`On March
`
`7, 2020
`
`a state
`
`of
`
`emergency
`
`was
`
`declared
`
`in New York
`
`State
`
`per
`
`Executive
`
`Order
`
`202,
`
`in relation
`
`to the COVID-19
`
`pañdemic.
`
`19.
`
`On March
`
`20,
`
`2020
`
`Executive
`
`Order
`
`202.8
`
`colloquially
`
`known
`
`as the "New
`
`York
`
`State
`
`on
`
`Pause"
`
`order
`
`closed
`
`all non-essential
`
`business
`
`and barred
`
`professional
`
`work
`
`places
`
`such as
`
`real
`
`estate
`
`offices
`
`and law firms
`
`from opening.
`
`20.
`
`Based
`
`upon
`
`Executive
`
`Order
`
`202
`
`and
`
`the
`
`subsequent
`
`Orders
`
`all
`
`non-
`
`Executive
`
`essential
`
`businesses
`
`were
`
`closed,
`
`gatherings
`
`were
`
`barred,
`
`and all
`
`regular
`
`operations
`
`of
`
`the State
`
`of
`
`New York
`
`were
`
`suspended
`
`or severely
`
`diminished.
`
`21.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`this
`
`change
`
`in law effectively
`
`baired
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`legally
`
`conducting
`
`any
`
`closing
`
`on
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises,
`
`as
`
`real
`
`estate,
`
`title
`
`companies,
`
`and
`
`professional
`
`offices
`
`such
`
`as transactional
`
`law firms
`
`could
`
`only
`
`operate
`
`remotely,
`
`and non-essential
`
`of
`
`individuals
`
`size
`
`for
`
`non-essentie
`
`reason were
`
`canceled
`
`at
`
`this
`
`gatherings
`
`of any
`
`any
`
`time making
`
`it a legal
`
`impossibility
`
`to effectuate
`
`a closing
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the contract.
`
`22.
`
`Based
`
`upon
`
`this
`
`change
`
`of
`
`law performance
`
`under
`
`the contract
`
`was
`
`an impossibility
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`due
`
`to operation
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`and
`
`such
`
`conditions
`
`were
`
`not
`
`contemplated
`
`by
`
`the January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale.
`
`23.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`this
`
`change
`
`in law further
`
`effected
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`ability
`
`to
`
`perform
`
`actions
`
`in an otherwise
`
`timely
`
`mamm,
`
`as offices
`
`and agencies
`
`from which
`
`documentadon
`
`3
`5 of
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`06/17/2020
`
`was
`
`required
`
`were
`
`unavailable
`
`to provide
`
`same.
`
`24.
`
`It was
`
`not
`
`until
`
`after
`
`the State
`
`of Emergency
`
`was
`
`declared
`
`on or about March
`
`13,
`
`2020
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`received
`
`a mortgage
`
`commitment
`
`through
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG and financed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`financial
`
`institution
`
`Mr. Cooper.
`
`25.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`by and through
`
`her attomey
`
`allowed
`
`this
`
`delay
`
`and took
`
`no action
`
`to cancel
`
`the
`
`sale. Although,
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`did later
`
`force
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`on
`
`pay
`
`the monthly
`
`utilities
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`which
`
`was
`
`not
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sales
`
`agreement,
`
`thus
`
`enforcing
`
`a penalty
`
`for
`
`a delay
`
`that was
`
`caused
`
`by
`
`operation
`
`of
`
`law and outside
`
`of
`
`the
`
`contract.
`
`26.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`allowed
`
`this
`
`non-contracted
`
`penalty
`
`to be imposed.
`
`27.
`
`. Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`after
`
`receiving
`
`the mortgage
`
`loan
`
`commitment
`
`the next
`
`steps
`
`to secure
`
`this
`
`loan were
`
`delayed
`
`and hindered
`
`the COVID-19
`
`pandemic
`
`severely
`
`by
`
`and state
`
`shutdown.
`
`28.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`on or about March
`
`31, 2020
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`advised
`
`that
`
`due
`
`to the
`
`economic
`
`impact
`
`of COVID-19
`
`the financial
`
`institution
`
`Mr. Cooper,
`
`would
`
`not be able to
`
`fmance
`
`her
`
`loan.
`
`29.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG then
`
`proceeded
`
`to
`
`get
`
`Plaintiff
`
`approved
`
`for
`
`a standard
`
`(non-FHA)
`
`mortgage
`
`loan
`
`commitment
`
`with
`
`Lending
`
`Point.
`
`Assuring
`
`her
`
`that
`
`all was well
`
`and to proceed
`
`with
`
`the purchase.
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`representations
`
`30.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`relied
`
`of Defendant
`
`RCG and attempted
`
`to continue
`
`with
`
`the purchase.
`
`31.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`as Plaintiff's
`
`attorney
`
`spoke
`
`to
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`attorneyonor
`
`about
`
`April3,
`
`2020
`
`regarding
`
`this
`
`delay.
`
`32.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`at
`
`this
`
`time
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`failed
`
`in her duty
`
`as
`
`attorney
`
`to Plaintiff,
`
`in that
`
`instead
`
`of asserting
`
`defenses
`
`to the
`
`delay
`
`or acting
`
`in acecidance
`
`with
`
`4
`6 of
`
`15
`
`

`

`-..
`--....
`.....-
`....
`..,-
`.
`-
`..,-.-
`...
`.
`-
`--
`...-
`. -...
`-
`...,
`-,
`,
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`of sale to receive
`
`a return
`
`of
`
`the
`
`deposit
`
`under
`
`paragraph
`
`7 of
`
`the rider
`
`to the January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`Contract
`
`of Sale
`
`she provided
`
`overwhelming
`
`concessions
`
`to get an extension
`
`to a contract
`
`that
`
`could
`
`not be performed
`
`by operation
`
`of
`
`law and/or
`
`due to the unforeseen
`
`global
`
`circumstances.
`
`33.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`the discussion
`
`on April
`
`3, 2020 was
`
`reduced
`
`to a letter
`
`by Defendant
`
`Dominjci
`
`and
`
`improperly
`
`purported
`
`to authorized
`
`a release
`
`of escrow
`
`and a contract
`
`revision
`
`of an increase
`
`of purchase
`
`price
`
`to 580k,
`
`in exchange
`
`for
`
`an extension
`
`of not more
`
`than
`
`(30)
`
`days.
`
`thirty
`
`34.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`revision
`
`was
`
`accepted
`
`and a law date was
`
`illegally
`
`set
`
`for
`
`the
`
`closing
`
`that was
`
`directly
`
`in contravention
`
`to the Executive
`
`Orders
`
`that
`
`barred
`
`such
`
`non-essential
`
`gathedngs.
`
`Thus,
`
`said
`
`amendment
`
`was barred
`
`by operation
`
`of
`
`law as well.
`
`35.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`the purported
`
`contract
`
`revision
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`this April
`
`3,
`
`2020
`
`letter
`
`was
`
`not
`
`sent
`
`to
`
`the Plaintiff,
`
`and
`
`communication
`
`regarding
`
`all
`
`amendments
`
`to the
`
`Contract
`
`of sale were
`
`non-existent.
`
`virtually
`
`36.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`the second
`
`attempt
`
`to obtain
`
`a mortgage
`
`by Defendant
`
`RCG was
`
`for
`
`a conventional
`
`mortgage,
`
`and was
`
`ineffectual
`
`as
`
`the
`
`documstadon
`
`necessary
`
`to
`
`finalize
`
`was
`
`unavailable
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`due to COVID-19
`
`closures.
`
`37.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`due
`
`to delays
`
`on the
`
`part
`
`of Defendant
`
`RCG and the
`
`closures
`
`due to the COVID-19
`
`pandemic
`
`Plaintiff
`
`did not obtain
`
`a mortgage
`
`within
`
`in the additional
`
`thirty
`
`(30)
`
`days
`
`outlined
`
`in the April
`
`3, 2020
`
`letter.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`sent
`
`a letter
`
`that
`
`no further
`
`On May
`
`13, 2020
`
`attorney
`
`stating
`
`extensions
`
`would
`
`be granted
`
`and
`
`that Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`would
`
`be unlawfully
`
`retaining
`
`the deposit
`
`atnount
`
`of
`
`$10,000.
`
`This
`
`letter
`
`was
`
`predicated
`
`on the
`
`assertion
`
`that Plaintiff
`
`had
`
`an insufficient
`
`credit
`
`score
`
`to obtain
`
`a mortgage.
`
`39.
`
`As
`
`of
`
`this writing
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`a credit
`
`score
`
`across
`
`the three major
`
`credit
`
`reporting
`
`companies
`
`that
`
`averages
`
`751, which,
`
`upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`should
`
`not
`
`in and of
`
`itself
`
`hinder
`
`any
`
`application
`
`for
`
`a mortgage.
`
`5
`
`7 of
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`06/17/2020
`
`40.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`on
`
`or
`
`about
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`this May
`
`13,
`
`2020
`
`letter
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`frustrated
`
`with
`
`her mortgage
`
`broker
`
`and
`
`began
`
`to contact
`
`other
`
`and more
`
`reputable
`
`companics
`
`only
`
`to
`
`discover
`
`that
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`were
`
`not
`
`eligible
`
`for
`
`an FSA mortgage.
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG was
`
`unaware
`
`of
`
`this
`
`and wasted
`
`two
`
`(2) months
`
`causing
`
`great
`
`damage
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`due
`
`to their
`
`negligence.
`
`41.
`
`then
`
`stopped
`
`business
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`conducting
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG,
`
`and brought
`
`in a
`
`new mortgage
`
`broker
`
`who
`
`then
`
`pre-approved
`
`her
`
`for a standard
`
`mortgage
`
`within
`
`a matter
`
`of days
`
`on
`
`or about May
`
`15, 2020.
`
`42.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s former
`
`counsel
`
`reached
`
`out
`
`to present
`
`this
`
`new
`
`approval
`
`to Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`counsel
`
`the
`
`request
`
`to
`
`purchase
`
`and
`
`extend
`
`deadliñcs
`
`further
`
`was
`
`rejected.
`
`43.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`this
`
`rejection
`
`and
`
`her
`
`prior
`
`counsel's
`
`failure
`
`manage
`
`the transaction
`
`to properly
`
`contract
`
`of sale.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`retained
`
`this
`
`firm to enforce
`
`her
`
`rights
`
`under
`
`the
`
`44.
`
`As of
`
`this writing
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`has continued
`
`to refuse
`
`to perform
`
`in accordãüce
`
`with
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`of sale,
`
`despite
`
`a letter
`
`from this
`
`firm dated
`
`June
`
`10, 2020
`
`detailing
`
`our
`
`intentions
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`and
`
`outlining
`
`the legal
`
`impossibility
`
`due to operation
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIRST
`AGAINST
`OF ACTION
`DEFENDANT
`CAUSE
`BREACH
`- SPECIFIC
`PREFORMANCE.
`MIREZ
`OF CONTRACT
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`reiterates
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`allegations,
`
`with
`
`the
`
`same
`
`force
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`as if
`
`forth
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`the same were
`
`set
`
`at
`
`46.
`
`Because
`
`of
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`forgoing,
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`breached
`
`the
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to return
`
`the
`
`deposit
`
`to Plaintiff,
`
`canceling
`
`the contract,
`
`and/or
`
`failing
`
`to
`
`allow
`
`the
`
`sale ofthe
`
`subject
`
`premises.
`
`47.
`
`The
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`are unique
`
`and
`
`the
`
`precise
`
`value
`
`of
`
`the
`
`loss
`
`of
`
`the
`
`ability
`
`to
`
`purchase
`
`the subject
`
`premises
`
`is both
`
`difficult
`
`to ascertain
`
`and varies
`
`with
`
`the strength
`
`and weAness
`
`6
`8 of
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`,
`..---
`...-
`-
`. -
`.
`-
`.-...-
`...,
`,
`-,
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`06/17/2020
`
`of
`
`the
`
`economy
`
`and market
`
`conditions.
`
`48.
`
`The
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of
`
`sale does
`
`not
`
`contemplate
`
`the current
`
`COVID-19
`
`crisis,
`
`nor
`
`the impedance
`
`and impossibility
`
`which
`
`it has created
`
`by operation
`
`of
`
`law or otherwise.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`terms
`
`that
`
`account
`
`for
`
`such
`
`occurrences,
`
`as well
`
`as a lack
`
`of
`
`"time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`essence"
`
`language
`
`within
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`provisions,
`
`the
`
`dates
`
`for
`
`completion
`
`of
`
`the contract
`
`should
`
`be deemed
`
`waived
`
`or amended
`
`to allow
`
`completion.
`
`for
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`an order
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`for
`
`specific
`
`performance,
`
`to wit,
`
`the
`
`sale
`
`of
`
`the subject
`
`premises.
`
`50.
`
`In the alternative,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez,
`
`for
`
`the sum
`
`of
`
`$10,000,
`
`representing
`
`the
`
`deposit
`
`upon
`
`this
`
`contract
`
`that
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`returned,
`
`in
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`paragraph
`
`7 of
`
`the tider
`
`to the January
`
`30, 2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale or otherwise,
`
`and
`
`additional
`
`damages
`
`in such
`
`amount(s)
`
`to be determined
`
`by the Court.
`
`Defendants
`
`Gross
`
`and
`
`J. Serra
`
`for
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`also
`
`demands
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Chaim
`
`the
`
`costs
`
`and disbursements
`
`of
`
`this
`
`proceeding
`
`and interest
`
`upon
`
`any damages
`
`award.
`
`AS
`
`AND
`
`FOR
`
`A SECOND
`CAUSE
`CONVERSION
`MIREZ
`
`ACTION
`OF
`OF PROPERTY.
`
`AGAINST
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`realleges
`
`all prior
`
`allegations
`
`with
`
`the same
`
`force
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`as
`
`if
`
`they
`
`were
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`at
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`53.
`
`In
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of
`
`sale Plaintiff
`
`delivered
`
`to
`
`upon
`
`amount
`
`of $10,000
`
`the deposit
`
`on the
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`attorney
`
`the then
`
`agreed
`
`representing
`
`subject
`
`premises,
`
`to be held
`
`in escrow.
`
`54.
`
`As
`
`an act of good
`
`faith
`
`this
`
`amount
`
`was
`
`improperly
`
`released
`
`to Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`or about
`
`April
`
`of 2020.
`
`In Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`May
`
`13, 2020
`
`letter
`
`they
`
`attribute
`
`the cañcelation
`
`the
`
`sale
`
`to the inability
`
`to secure
`
`a mortgage,
`
`a matter
`
`they
`
`had been
`
`previously
`
`advised
`
`of. Thus,
`
`in
`
`of
`
`in
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`paragraph
`
`7 of
`
`the rider
`
`to the January
`
`30, 2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale the deposit
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`returned.
`
`7
`
`15
`
`9 of
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`RECEIVED
`06/17/2020
`NYSCEF:
`
`55.
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez's
`
`May
`
`13, 2020
`
`letter
`
`specifically
`
`states
`
`that
`
`she refuses
`
`to retum
`
`the deposit
`
`despite
`
`discussions
`
`to do so.
`
`56.
`
`As
`
`such
`
`the
`
`return
`
`of
`
`said
`
`escrow
`
`funds
`
`has been
`
`due
`
`and
`
`demanded
`
`by Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants
`
`refuse
`
`to retum
`
`same.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`intentionally
`
`acted
`
`to
`
`deprive
`
`Plaintiff
`
`of
`
`ownership
`
`of
`
`the
`
`escrowed
`
`funds.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant
`
`convert
`
`the
`
`deposit
`
`Mirez,
`
`property
`
`of Plaintiff,
`
`to wit,
`
`the
`
`paid
`
`into
`
`escrow
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of sale, having
`
`engaged
`
`in conduct
`
`which
`
`permanently
`
`deprived
`
`Plaintiff
`
`of
`
`lawful
`
`ownership
`
`and/or
`
`passession
`
`of same.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`Mirez,
`
`for
`
`the
`
`total
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$10,000
`
`plus
`
`costs,
`
`disbursements
`
`and interest.
`
`AS AND FOR A THIRD
`CAUSE
`OF ACTION
`RCG - BREACH
`OF CONTRACT/BREACH
`
`AGAINST
`OF IMPLIED
`
`DEFENDANT
`CONTRACT.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`reiterates
`
`all of
`
`with
`
`same
`
`the foregoing
`
`allegations,
`
`the
`
`force
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`as if
`
`the same were
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`at
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`61.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG in
`
`or
`
`about
`
`February
`
`2020
`
`was
`
`contracted
`
`by Plainti.ff
`
`to secure
`
`a mortgage
`
`for
`
`the subject
`
`premises
`
`after
`
`the contract
`
`of
`
`sale was
`
`finalized.
`
`62.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG was aware
`
`of
`
`the terms
`
`of
`
`the contract
`
`of sale and agreed
`
`to aid in obtaining
`
`a mortgage
`
`in a timely
`
`manner.
`
`to meet
`
`their
`
`and
`
`63.
`
`Upon
`
`inforrnation
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG failed
`
`commitments,
`
`due to a lack
`
`of performance
`
`introduced
`
`several
`
`unmeessary
`
`delays,
`
`that have
`
`harmed
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`64.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG failed
`
`to respond
`
`to communications
`
`in a timely
`
`maññêr,
`
`ignored
`
`their
`
`duties,
`
`and
`
`despite
`
`gaining
`
`conditicñal
`
`fmaacing
`
`failed
`
`to finalize
`
`a mortgage
`
`in this matter.
`
`65,
`
`Because
`
`of all of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG,
`
`8
`of
`
`10
`
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF
`1
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`in an amount
`
`to be determined
`
`by the Court
`
`plus
`
`costs,
`
`disbursements
`
`and interest.
`
`AS AND FOR A FOURTH
`
`CAUSE
`OF ACTION
`RCG - NEGLIGENCE.
`
`AGAINST
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`reiterates
`
`all of
`
`the foregoing
`
`allegations,
`
`with
`
`the
`
`same
`
`force
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`as if
`
`the same were
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`at
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`67.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG in
`
`or
`
`about
`
`February
`
`2020
`
`was
`
`contracted
`
`by Plaintiff
`
`to secure
`
`a mortgage
`
`for
`
`the subject
`
`prealises
`
`after
`
`the contract
`
`of
`
`sale was
`
`finalized.
`
`68.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG was aware
`
`of
`
`the tenns
`
`of
`
`the contract
`
`of
`
`sale
`
`and agreed
`
`to aid in obtaining
`
`a mortgage
`
`in a timely
`
`manner.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG failed
`
`to
`
`exercise
`
`reasonable
`
`care
`
`in
`
`their
`
`duties
`
`as a mortgage
`
`broker,
`
`toward
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`70.
`
`Upon
`
`informanon
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`RCG spent
`
`approximately
`
`two
`
`(2) months
`
`after
`
`being
`
`retained
`
`attempting
`
`to
`
`obtain
`
`an FHA mortgage
`
`on the
`
`subject
`
`premises.
`
`The
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`to receive
`
`and
`
`are not
`
`eligible
`
`an FHA mortgage,
`
`specialist
`
`brokers
`
`such
`
`as Defendant
`
`RCG had
`
`a duty
`
`to known
`
`or
`
`to check
`
`the eligibility
`
`of
`
`the subject
`
`preatises
`
`prior
`
`to spending
`
`two
`
`months
`
`attempting
`
`to obtain
`
`a mortgage
`
`that was unavail
`
`able.
`
`71.
`
`As
`
`a result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`suffered
`
`injuries
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`above,
`
`including,
`
`but
`
`not
`
`limited
`
`to,
`
`increased
`
`transacdon
`
`fees,
`
`cancelation
`
`of
`
`the contract
`
`of sale, deprived
`
`enjoyment
`
`and use of
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`and loss
`
`of deposit
`
`on the subject
`
`premises.
`
`premises,
`
`72.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands,
`
`and
`
`is
`
`entitled
`
`to,
`
`judgmcñ‡
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`for
`
`negligence,
`
`in an amount
`
`to be determined
`
`by this Court.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIFTH
`CAUSE
`DOMINICI-
`
`OF ACTION
`MALPRACTICE.
`
`AGAINST
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`reiterates
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the foregoing
`
`allegations,
`
`with
`
`the
`
`same
`
`force
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`as if
`
`the same were
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`at
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`74.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`was
`
`retained
`
`to represent
`
`Plaintiff
`
`9
`o r
`
`15
`
`11
`
`

`

`-.-
`---
`....
`-
`...
`. -...
`...-
`,
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`..,
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`in relation
`
`to her purchase
`
`of
`
`the subject
`
`premises.
`
`75.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`exercise
`
`the
`
`ordinary
`
`reasOliãute
`
`skill
`
`and knowledge
`
`commonly
`
`possessed
`
`by a member
`
`of
`
`the legal
`
`profession.
`
`76.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`knew
`
`or should
`
`have
`
`known
`
`that
`
`the
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2020
`
`contract
`
`of
`
`sale between
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Defendant
`
`Mirez
`
`would
`
`be impractical
`
`or
`
`impossible
`
`by operation
`
`of
`
`law and the COVID-19
`
`onsts.
`
`77.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`circumstsaces
`
`created
`
`by
`
`COVID-19
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`advised
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`she could
`
`continue
`
`the trarasaction.
`
`When
`
`further
`
`delays
`
`occurred
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`should
`
`have
`
`attempted
`
`to either
`
`cancel
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`and
`
`retrieve
`
`the
`
`down
`
`payment,
`
`or attempt
`
`to seek
`
`an extension
`
`to fulfil
`
`the terms
`
`of
`
`the contract
`
`from the Court
`
`on
`
`the grounds
`
`we now seek
`
`specific
`
`performance.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`had
`
`result
`
`in
`
`the
`
`78.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`a better
`
`underlying
`
`matter
`
`"but
`
`for"
`
`the Defendant
`
`Dominici's
`
`negligence
`
`79.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`not
`
`only
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`take
`
`such
`
`actions
`
`as listed
`
`above
`
`she actively
`
`harmed
`
`her
`
`client
`
`by negotiating
`
`a deal
`
`to have
`
`her client
`
`pay the
`
`expenses
`
`of
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`premises
`
`during
`
`held
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the COVID-19
`
`crisis.
`
`Then
`
`further
`
`harmed
`
`her client
`
`the cõñtract
`
`of
`
`sale for
`
`a
`
`by
`
`releasing
`
`the
`
`deposit
`
`that was
`
`in escrow,
`
`and agreeing
`
`to modify
`
`higher
`
`sale
`
`price.
`
`Thus,
`
`she failed
`
`to take
`
`reasonable
`
`care
`
`to protect
`
`her
`
`client's
`
`rights
`
`under
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`or cancel
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`in an amicable
`
`manner,
`
`while
`
`taking
`
`steps
`
`that
`
`actively
`
`dimidshed
`
`her
`
`client's
`
`rights
`
`and
`
`caused
`
`direct
`
`damages.
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Defendant
`
`Dominici
`
`in such
`
`amount(s)
`
`to be
`
`determined
`
`by
`
`the Court,
`
`10
`of
`
`15
`
`12
`
`

`

`-----
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`..
`...---
`...-..
`.. --..
`-
`.
`---....
`-
`.
`,
`-
`-
`-
`-
`...-
`...
`. -
`-,
`,
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`1
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`AS AND FOR A SIXTH
`CAUSE
`DEFENDANTS
`
`OF ACTION
`- LEGAL
`FEES.
`
`AGAINST
`
`ALL
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`realleges
`
`all prior
`
`allegations
`
`with
`
`the same
`
`force
`
`and effect
`
`as
`
`if
`
`they were
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`at
`
`length
`
`hereat.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`demands
`
`from
`
`Defedmis,
`
`a judgment
`
`for
`
`her
`
`reasonable
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees,
`
`costs,
`
`and
`
`disbursements
`
`incurred
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`this
`
`action
`
`pursuant
`
`to statute,
`
`case law and/or
`
`otherwise,
`
`if applicable.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`judgment
`
`for
`
`the monetary
`
`and
`
`equitable
`
`relief
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`above,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and further
`
`relief
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`deems
`
`just,
`
`equitable
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`New York
`New York,
`16, 2020
`June
`
`Yours,
`
`etc.
`
`SOKOLSKI & ZEARIA,
`Attorneys
`or Plaintf
`
`P.C.
`
`A ZAKARIA,
`BY: DAPH
`305 Broadway,
`Suite
`New York, New York
`571-4080
`(212)
`
`EsQ.
`1004
`10007
`
`11
`o f
`
`15
`
`13
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`Index No.
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`SUPREME
`COURT
`COUNTY
`OF SUFFOLK
`----------------------------------x
`NANCY
`
`CORCIONE,
`
`:
`
`: :
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`: :
`
`:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`ALICE
`MIREZ
`n/k/a/
`RCG MORTGAGE
`SOLUTIONS,
`CATHERINE
`LEE DOMINICI,
`
`ALICE
`
`TORTORA,
`
`LLC,
`Esq.,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`as.:
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`----------------------------------x
`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`
`COUNTYOF
`
`NEW YORK
`
`NANCY
`
`CORCIONE,
`
`being
`
`duly
`
`swom,
`
`deposes
`
`and
`
`states
`
`under
`
`the
`
`penalties
`
`ofperjury,
`
`as follows:
`
`I am a Plaintiff
`
`in this
`
`action.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`I am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the facts
`
`and
`
`circumstatices
`
`in this
`
`action.
`
`I have
`
`read
`
`the foregoing
`
`Complaint
`
`and know
`
`the contents
`
`thereof.
`
`The
`
`same
`
`is tme
`
`to my own
`
`knowledge,
`
`except
`
`those matters
`
`alleged
`
`upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`and
`
`as to those matters,
`
`I believe
`
`them to be true.
`
`NA.
`
`C
`
`ORCIONE
`
`Swom to before me this
`2020
`of June,
`
`day
`
`NOTARY
`
`PUBLIC
`
`THOlWAS E. PALUMBERI
`NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
`No. 01PA6140310
`Qualified
`in Suffolk County
`My Commission Expires February 13, 20__
`
`12
`
`14
`
`of
`
`15
`
`1
`
`

`

`--..
`...--
`.
`.
`--..
`---....
`.- -
`-
`-
`-
`-...--.
`-
`.
`,
`.--
`. -
`-,
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 11:18 AM
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15
`
`...
`
`INDEX NO. 607294/2020
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`06/17/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COURT
`OF SUFFOLK
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`Year
`
`2016
`
`NANCY
`
`CORCIONE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`n/k/a/
`
`ALICE
`MIREZ,
`RCG MORTGAGE
`SOLUTIONS,
`CATHERINE
`LEE DOMINICI,
`
`ALICE
`
`TORTORA,
`LLC,
`Esq.,
`
`and
`
`Defendant.
`
`SUMMONS
`
`AND VERIFIED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Law Off
`ce of
`& ZEKARIA,
`SOKOLSKI
`for Plaintif
`Attorneys
`- Suite
`305 Broadway
`New York,
`New York
`571-4080
`(212)
`
`P.C.
`
`1004
`10007
`
`Service
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`the within
`, 2020
`
`is hereby
`
`admitted.
`
`Date:
`
`By:
`
`To:
`
`Attorney(s)
`PLEASE
`
`for
`TAKE
`
`NOTICE:
`
`OF ENTRY
`[]NOTICE
`that
`the within
`is a (certified)
`entered
`in the ofEce
`
`duly
`
`of
`
`flNOTICE
`
`OF SETTLEMENT
`
`true
`copy
`the clerk
`
`of
`
`of a
`the within
`
`Court
`
`on
`
`an order
`be presented
`named
`
`for
`
`Court,
`
`settlement
`at
`
`to the Hon.
`
`20
`
`at
`
`M.
`
`that
`will
`within
`on
`
`Dated,
`
`of which
`one of
`
`the within
`the judges
`
`of
`
`is a true
`the
`
`copy
`
`etc.
`Yours,
`& ZEKARIA,
`SOKOLSKI
`1805 BROADWAY-SUITE
`
`1004
`
`P.C.
`
`15
`
`o f
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket