FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURTOF
`OF SUFFOLK
`
`THE STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`_____________________________________________________________Ç
`TOWNE
`VETERINARY
`
`LINE
`
`GROUP,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`614720/2022
`
`AFFIDAVIT
`
`OF SERVICE
`
`LASKEY
`
`SILBERSTANG
`FERRANTELLO
`ENGINEERING
`FERRANTELLO
`PERMITS
`
`P.C.,
`ARCHITECTS,
`FERRANTELLO
`GROUP,
`P.C.,
`& LAND SURVEYING
`LAND SURVEYING,
`ZOOM.COM,
`
`GROUP,
`P.C.,
`and BUILDING
`P.C.
`
`Defendants.
`
`______________________________________________x
`
`ss.:
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF NASSAU
`
`Susan M. Gross,
`
`beingduly
`
`sworn,
`
`deposes
`
`and
`
`says:
`
`I am not
`State
`of Queens,
`
`to this
`a party
`of New York;
`
`action,
`and
`
`County
`
`I am over
`
`18 years
`
`of age and
`
`I
`
`reside
`
`in the
`
`On
`November
`and
`true
`a
`enclosed
`deponent
`3,
`AND
`SUMMONS
`AND
`AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`COMPLAINT
`TO 3215(g)(4)(ii)
`PURSUANT
`and NOTICE
`AND CONFIDENTIAL,
`same, MARKED
`PERSONAL
`communication
`no
`indication
`that
`the
`envelope,
`in an official
`under
`the
`exclusive
`an alleged
`depository
`of New York
`Postal
`within
`the State
`upon:
`States
`
`SUMMONS
`VERIFIED
`of
`copy
`postage-paid
`concerned
`United
`
`with
`
`debt,
`Service
`
`2022
`
`correct
`AND
`
`the
`
`of
`copy
`AMENDED
`a true
`
`attorney
`custody
`
`of
`
`or
`the
`
`depositing
`by
`in
`a properly
`addressed,
`from
`an
`was
`care
`and
`
`LASKEY
`SILBERSTANG
`26th Street
`250 West
`New York
`New York,
`
`10001
`
`ARCHITECTS,
`
`P.C.
`
`Sworn
`3rd
`
`day
`
`me this
`to before
`of November,
`
`2022
`
`SUSAN
`
`M. GROSS
`
`Notary
`
`Public
`
`UNDA
`NOTARY
`PUBUC,
`NO. 01KL8130742.
`TERM EXPiRES
`
`KLEMBALLA
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`SUFFOLK
`JULY 18,
`
`1 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`OF SUFFOLK
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`_________________________..________________________________________Ç
`TOWNE
`VETERINARY
`
`LINE
`
`GROUP,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`614720/2022
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`SILBERSTANG
`FERRANTELLO
`ENGINEERING
`FERRANTELLO
`BUILDING
`
`LASKEY
`
`ARCHITECTS,
`P.C.,
`FERRANTELLO
`GROUP,
`P.C.,
`& LAND SURVEYlNG
`LAND SURVEYING,
`PERMITS
`ZOOM.COM,
`
`GROUP,
`and
`P.C.
`
`P.C.,
`
`______________________________________.----------_____________x
`
`Defendants.
`
`NOTICE
`
`OF THE
`TO §3215(g)(4)(ii)
`PURSUANT
`BE ADVISED
`PLEASE
`CPLR,
`THAT,
`AN ADDITIONAL
`CONSTITUTES
`THAT
`GIVEN
`IS HEREBY
`NOTICE
`THIS
`AND
`AND COMPLAINT
`SUMMONS
`OF THE ACCOMPANYING
`SERVICE
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`AND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`SUMMONS
`UPON
`IS BEING
`LASKEY
`P.C.. WHICH
`DEFENDANT
`SILBERSTANG
`ARCHITECTS,
`MADE WITH OR AFTER
`SERVICE
`UPON
`SUCH
`DEFENDANT
`PURSUANT
`TO
`OF THE NEW YORK BUSINESS
`LAW
`SECTION
`CORPORATION
`
`306(b)
`
`Dated:
`
`Uniondale,
`November
`
`New York
`3, 2022
`
`WESTERMAN
`BALL
`& SHARFSTEIN,
`ZUCKER
`
`EDERER
`LLP
`
`MILLER
`
`By:
`
`Q
`
`&
`
`/KQ/(
`
`Esq.
`
`11556
`
`Jay S. Hellman,
`1201 RXR Plaza
`New York
`Uniondale,
`622-9200
`(516)
`jhellman@westermanllp.com
`for
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Attorney
`
`2 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`FILED:
`SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`/2022
`/29
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`07
`24
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`07/29/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF THE STATE
`OF SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`_____________.---------..-------..-----------------------Ç
`-----------_
`TOWNE LINE
`VETERINARY
`GROUP,
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`Date
`
`No.:
`Purchased:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`SUMMONS
`
`LASKEY
`
`SILBERSTANG
`FERRANTELLO
`GROUP,
`PERMITS
`ZOOM.COM,
`
`ARCHITECTS,
`and BUILDING
`P.C.
`
`P.C.,
`
`on CPLR 503(a).
`is based
`Venue
`designates
`Suffolk
`Plaintiff
`of
`trial.
`as the place
`
`County
`
`-------------..-----------------------------------------------------Ç
`
`Defendants.
`
`TO THE
`
`ABOVE-NAMED
`
`DEFENDANTS:
`
`You
`
`are
`
`hereby
`
`summoned
`
`to answer
`
`the complaint
`
`in this
`
`action,
`
`and
`
`to serve
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`your
`
`answer,
`
`or,
`
`if
`
`the complaint
`
`is not
`
`served
`
`with
`
`this
`
`summons,
`
`to serve
`
`a notice
`
`of appearance
`
`within
`
`days
`
`after
`
`the
`
`service
`
`of
`
`this
`
`exclusive
`
`of
`
`on the Plaintiffs
`
`attorneys
`
`twenty
`
`(20)
`
`summons,
`
`the day
`
`of service,
`
`where
`
`service
`
`is made
`
`upon
`
`you
`
`personally
`
`within
`
`the state
`
`or within
`
`thirty
`
`(30)
`
`days
`
`aAer
`
`completion
`
`of service
`
`where
`
`service
`
`is made
`
`in any
`
`other manner.
`
`In case of your
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`or answer,
`
`judgment
`
`will
`
`be taken
`
`against
`
`you
`
`by default
`
`for
`
`the relief
`
`demanded
`
`in the
`
`complaint.
`
`Dated:
`
`New York
`Uniondale,
`29, 2022
`July
`
`WESTERMAN
`ZUCKER
`
`EDERER
`BALL
`& SHARFSTEIN,
`
`MILLER
`LLP
`
`Esq.
`
`S. Hellman,
`201 RXR Plaza
`New York
`Uniondale,
`622-9200
`Tel.
`(516)
`jhellman@westermanllp.com
`Attorneys
`for
`
`Plaintiff
`
`11556
`
`1 of
`
`23
`
`3 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`FILED:
`SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`07/29/2022
`24
`11:
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`AM)
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`614720/2022
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`07/29/2022
`NYSCEF:
`
`.
`
`To:
`
`LASKEY
`SILBERSTANG
`26d' Street
`250 West
`New York,
`New York
`
`10001
`
`ARCHITECTS,
`
`P.C.
`
`FERRANTELLO
`12 West Mall
`New York
`
`Plainview,
`
`11803
`
`GROUP,
`
`P.C.
`
`BUILDING
`250 Merrick
`Rockville
`
`PERMITS
`
`ZOOM.COM
`
`Road,
`Centre,
`
`#84
`New York
`
`11570
`
`2
`
`2 of
`
`23
`
`4 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`|F I LED :
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`07
`2 4
`11:
`AM)
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`61472O/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`SUPREME
`COURT
`OF SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`_______-____________________________________________________Ç
`TOWNE LINE
`VETERINARY
`
`GROUP,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against
`
`-
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`LASKEY
`
`SILBERSTANG
`FERRANTELLO
`GROUP,
`PERMITS
`ZOOM.COM,
`
`ARCHITECTS,
`P.C.
`and BUILDING
`
`P.C.,
`
`Defendants.
`_________________________________________________________-------------X
`
`Towne
`
`Line
`
`Veterinary
`
`Group
`
`("Plaintiff"),
`
`by its attorneys,
`
`Westerman
`
`Ball
`
`Ederer Miller
`
`Zucker
`
`& Sharfstein,
`
`LLP,
`
`as and
`
`for
`
`its
`
`complaint
`
`against
`
`Silberstang
`
`Lasky
`
`Architects
`
`P.C.
`
`("SLA"),
`
`Ferrantello
`
`Group
`
`P.C.
`
`("Ferrantello")
`
`and
`
`Building
`
`Permits
`
`Zoom.com
`
`("BPZ"
`
`and,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`SLA and Ferrantello,
`
`sometimes
`
`collectively
`
`the "Defendants")
`
`alleges
`
`as follows:
`
`THE
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`real
`
`known
`
`as and
`
`located
`
`at
`
`579
`
`Veterans
`
`Memorial
`
`Highway,
`
`Hauppauge,
`
`New York
`
`(the
`
`"Premises").
`
`property
`
`2.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`defendant
`
`SLA is a licensed
`
`architectural
`
`firm with
`
`a
`
`place
`
`of business
`
`at 250 West
`
`26th
`
`Street, New York,
`
`New York.
`
`3.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`defendant
`
`Ferrantello
`
`is a licensed
`
`surveying
`
`and
`
`engineering
`
`firm with
`
`a place
`
`of business
`
`at 12 West Mall,
`
`Plainview,
`
`New York.
`
`4.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`defendant
`
`Building
`
`Permits
`
`Zoom.com
`
`is a domestic
`
`business
`
`entity
`
`that
`
`provides
`
`expediting
`
`services
`
`for
`
`construction
`
`permitting
`
`with
`
`a place
`
`of
`
`business
`
`at 250 Merrick
`
`Road,
`
`#84, Rockville
`
`Centre,
`
`New York.
`
`1
`
`3 of
`
`23
`
`5 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`FILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`:
`/ 2 9 /2
`07
`2 4
`02
`2
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`614720/2022
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`is proper
`
`in this Court
`
`because
`
`the transactions
`
`that
`
`form the basis
`
`of
`
`complaint
`
`occurred
`
`in the State
`
`of New York.
`
`Venue
`
`is proper
`
`in this Court
`
`because
`
`the
`
`property
`
`and
`
`the construction
`
`project
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`are located
`
`in Suffolk
`
`County.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL
`
`CLAIMS
`
`A.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Retains
`
`SLA
`
`7.
`
`In December
`
`2019,
`
`after
`
`obtaining
`
`a loan
`
`from Bank
`
`of America
`
`Practice
`
`Solutions
`
`(the
`
`"Bank"),
`
`Plaintiff
`
`hired
`
`SLA as architect
`
`of
`
`record
`
`for
`
`the renovation
`
`of an existing
`
`diner
`
`(the
`
`"Diner")
`
`located
`
`on the Premises
`
`into
`
`a new veterinary
`
`clinic
`
`and boarding
`
`facility
`
`(the "Project").
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and SLA
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`a written
`
`agreement
`
`relating
`
`to the
`
`services
`
`to be
`
`performed
`
`by SLA (the
`
`"Architect
`
`Agreement").
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA was
`
`required,
`
`among
`
`other
`
`things,
`
`to
`
`prepare
`
`drawings
`
`for
`
`the
`
`design
`
`and
`
`construction
`
`of
`
`the Project
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`all
`
`state
`
`and
`
`local
`
`laws,
`
`rules,
`
`and
`
`regulations.
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`the scope
`
`of work
`
`included,
`
`in addition
`
`to the
`
`general
`
`renovation
`
`of
`
`the existing
`
`building,
`
`the development
`
`of
`
`the cellar
`
`of
`
`the diner
`
`building
`
`into
`
`a "useful,
`
`habitable
`
`space,"
`
`the addition
`
`of a large window
`
`well
`
`at
`
`the cellar,
`
`and the construction
`
`of a new screen
`
`façade
`
`over
`
`the existing
`
`façade
`
`that would
`
`remain.
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA agreed
`
`to provide
`
`drawings
`
`specifically
`
`required
`
`for
`
`submission
`
`to the Town
`
`of
`
`Islip
`
`(the
`
`"Town").
`
`2
`
`4 of
`
`23
`
`6 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`COUNTY
`SUF FOLK
`CLERK
`:
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`9 / 2 02
`07
`/2
`2
`11:
`2 4
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`1
`NO.
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`12.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA
`
`also
`
`agreed,
`
`among
`
`other
`
`things,
`
`to
`
`coordinate
`
`with
`
`other
`
`professionals
`
`and the relevant
`
`governmental
`
`agencies
`
`to obtain
`
`the necessary
`
`approvals
`
`for
`
`the plans
`
`to construct
`
`the Project.
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA
`
`also
`
`agreed
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`base
`
`its
`
`schematic
`
`design
`
`on
`
`parameters
`
`provided
`
`by Plaintiff,
`
`obtain
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`approval
`
`for
`
`the
`
`fmal
`
`schematic
`
`design,
`
`work
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to develop
`
`the
`
`look
`
`and feel
`
`of
`
`the Project,
`
`and meet
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to select materials,
`
`fixtures,
`
`and finishes.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA also
`
`agreed
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`coordinate
`
`all
`
`work
`
`with
`
`the
`
`other
`
`defendants
`
`herein
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`design
`
`and
`
`construction
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Project.
`
`the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`stated
`
`the role
`
`of
`
`the expeditor,
`
`discussed
`
`below,
`
`was
`
`to obtain
`
`Further,
`
`permits
`
`for
`
`the Project.
`
`15.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`SLA
`
`proposed
`
`to charge
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a flat
`
`fee of
`
`$47,500
`
`for what
`
`SLA identified
`
`as "Base
`
`Architectural
`
`Services,"
`
`including
`
`a schematic
`
`design,
`
`interior
`
`design,
`
`design
`
`development,
`
`coordination
`
`with
`
`engineers,
`
`designs
`
`for
`
`Town
`
`filing,
`
`and
`
`production
`
`of construction
`
`documents
`
`used
`
`to obtain
`
`bids
`
`from contractors.
`
`16.
`
`In addition,
`
`the cost
`
`of designing
`
`a new façade,
`
`a lightwell,
`
`and
`
`stairs
`
`to the cellar,
`
`as well
`
`as design
`
`services
`
`related
`
`to infrastructure
`
`and
`
`the
`
`clinic's
`
`envelope,
`
`were
`
`to be billed
`
`hourly
`
`at an overall
`
`estimate
`
`of $40,000-$60,000.
`
`B.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Retains
`
`BPZ
`
`17.
`
`In January
`
`2020,
`
`pursuant
`
`to the
`
`requirement
`
`in the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`and
`
`in
`
`reliance
`
`upon
`
`SLA's
`
`recommendation,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`hired
`
`BPZ
`
`to obtain
`
`the
`
`necessary
`
`permits
`
`from
`
`the Town
`
`for
`
`the construction
`
`of
`
`the Project.
`
`3
`
`5 of
`
`23
`
`7 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`:
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`07
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`614720/2022
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`07/29/2022
`NYSCEF:
`
`18.
`
`BPZ held
`
`itself
`
`out as being
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the requirements
`
`and filing
`
`processes
`
`for
`
`obtaining
`
`permits
`
`from the Town.
`
`19,
`
`BPZ
`
`was
`
`also hired
`
`to conduct
`
`a search
`
`of
`
`town
`
`records
`
`to determine
`
`whether
`
`there
`
`were
`
`any
`
`filings
`
`related
`
`to
`
`the Premises
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`obtaining
`
`permits,
`
`including
`
`any
`
`previously
`
`approved
`
`site plans
`
`for
`
`the Premises.
`
`C.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`retains
`
`Ferrantello
`
`20.
`
`Four months
`
`into
`
`its
`
`design
`
`of
`
`the Project,
`
`SLA
`
`informed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`a civil
`
`engineer
`
`was
`
`also
`
`necessary
`
`to provide
`
`a site
`
`plan
`
`to submit
`
`to the Town.
`
`21.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`in April
`
`2020,
`
`and
`
`again
`
`at SLA's
`
`recommendation,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`hired
`
`Ferrantello
`
`to provide
`
`civil
`
`engmeermg
`
`services
`
`for
`
`the purpose
`
`of preparing
`
`a site plan
`
`to file with
`
`the Town
`
`in advance
`
`of and as a condition
`
`precent
`
`to the issuance
`
`of any
`
`building
`
`permit
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Project.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`Ferrantello
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`an agreement
`
`for
`
`Ferrantello
`
`to provide
`
`the
`
`civil
`
`engineering
`
`services
`
`(the
`
`"Engineer
`
`Agreement").
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Engineer
`
`Agreement,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`agreed,
`
`among
`
`other
`
`things,
`
`carry
`
`out
`
`boundary
`
`and
`
`topographic
`
`mapping,
`
`site
`
`utility
`
`mapping,
`
`and
`
`topographic
`
`mapping
`
`adjacent
`
`roadways
`
`as well
`
`as develop
`
`a civil
`
`engineering
`
`site
`
`development
`
`set
`
`for
`
`submission
`
`to
`
`of
`
`to
`
`the Town.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Engineer
`
`Agreement,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`also
`
`agreed
`
`to provide
`
`zoning,
`
`parking,
`
`and permit
`
`requirements,
`
`provide
`
`a parking-pavement
`
`plan
`
`that
`
`complies
`
`with
`
`the Town
`
`and
`
`access
`
`and
`
`spacing
`
`requirements
`
`of
`
`the Americans
`
`with
`
`Disabilities
`
`Act
`
`(the
`
`"ADA"),
`
`and
`
`prepare
`
`the surveys
`
`and mapping
`
`specifically
`
`to obtain
`
`permits
`
`and final
`
`approvals
`
`from the Town.
`
`4
`
`6 of
`
`23
`
`8 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`:
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`11:
`2 4
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`D.
`
`The
`
`Architect's
`
`Grossly
`
`Negligent
`
`Acts,
`
`Errors,
`
`and/or
`
`Omissions
`
`25.
`
`As
`
`described
`
`in detail
`
`below,
`
`SLA breached
`
`its professional
`
`duties
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`by
`
`grossly
`
`failing
`
`to provide
`
`work
`
`commensurate
`
`with
`
`the
`
`care
`
`and
`
`skill
`
`expected
`
`from
`
`a licensed
`
`professional
`
`architect.
`
`26.
`
`Indeed,
`
`SLA prepared
`
`architectural
`
`plans
`
`before
`
`Town
`
`approval
`
`of
`
`the
`
`site
`
`plan,
`
`resulted
`
`of architectural
`
`of
`
`related
`
`work
`
`that
`
`which
`
`in the preparation
`
`plans
`
`and
`
`the performance
`
`is not
`
`in compliance
`
`with
`
`the laws,
`
`rules,
`
`and/or
`
`regulations
`
`of
`
`the Town
`
`and
`
`for which
`
`no permits
`
`have
`
`been,
`
`or can be,
`
`issued.
`
`27.
`
`SLA represented
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`that,
`
`through
`
`its expertise
`
`and with
`
`the
`
`assistance
`
`of
`
`an expeditor,
`
`it would
`
`be able
`
`to obtain
`
`the necessary
`
`permits
`
`for
`
`the Project.
`
`28.
`
`Notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`SLA erroneously
`
`insisted
`
`that
`
`permit
`
`applications
`
`with
`
`the Town's
`
`Department
`
`(the
`
`the site plan
`
`needed
`
`be filed
`
`of Buildings
`
`"DOB")
`
`when,
`
`in fact,
`
`to first
`
`be approved
`
`by
`
`the Town's
`
`Department
`
`of Engineering.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`however,
`
`did
`
`not
`
`discover
`
`this
`
`error
`
`until
`
`November
`
`2020,
`
`almost
`
`a year
`
`after
`
`SLA
`
`was
`
`hired.
`
`30.
`
`The
`
`discovery
`
`came
`
`along
`
`with
`
`a long
`
`list of documents
`
`that
`
`needed
`
`to be submitted
`
`beyond
`
`what SLA believed
`
`was
`
`needed
`
`for
`
`the Project.
`
`31.
`
`As detailed
`
`a series
`
`of other
`
`blunders
`
`occurred
`
`prior
`
`to this
`
`which
`
`below,
`
`discovery
`
`explain
`
`why
`
`it
`
`took
`
`so long
`
`for SLA to realize
`
`the mistake.
`
`32.
`
`Ultimately,
`
`SLA admitted
`
`that
`
`it did
`
`not
`
`understand
`
`the Town
`
`requirements
`
`and
`
`wasted
`
`a year-and-a-half
`
`committing
`
`countless
`
`errors
`
`that
`
`derailed
`
`the filing
`
`process.
`
`33.
`
`After
`
`Plaintiff
`
`hired
`
`Ferrantello
`
`in April
`
`2020,
`
`SLA led Plaintiff
`
`to believe
`
`that
`
`the
`
`filing
`
`process
`
`would
`
`be underway.
`
`However,
`
`in mid-June
`
`2020,
`
`SLA advised
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`there
`
`5
`
`7 of
`
`23
`
`9 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`FILED
`SUF FOLK
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`:
`9 / 2 0 2 2
`07
`/2
`2 4
`11:
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`AM)
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`1
`NO.
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`had been
`
`no further
`
`progress
`
`because
`
`none
`
`of
`
`the defendants
`
`had been
`
`able
`
`to acquire
`
`the site plan
`
`for
`
`the Premises
`
`from the DOB.
`
`34.
`
`Over
`
`the months
`
`of
`
`June,
`
`July,
`
`and
`
`August,
`
`SLA
`
`exclusively
`
`handled
`
`all
`
`communication
`
`with
`
`Ferrantello
`
`and misrepresented
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`Ferrantello
`
`was
`
`almost
`
`finished
`
`with
`
`the
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`design,
`
`despite
`
`multiple
`
`emails
`
`from
`
`Ferrantello
`
`in which
`
`Ferrantello
`
`consistently
`
`informed
`
`SLA of delays
`
`in its work.
`
`for
`
`permit
`
`35.
`
`For
`
`example,
`
`on
`
`June
`
`15,
`
`2020,
`
`SLA advised
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`drawings
`
`approval
`
`were
`
`close
`
`to completion
`
`and could
`
`be filed
`
`as soon
`
`as the in-progress
`
`site plan
`
`approval
`
`was
`
`complete.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`However,
`
`the indication
`
`that
`
`the application
`
`was
`
`about
`
`to be filed
`
`was
`
`untrue.
`
`On
`
`June
`
`18,
`
`2020,
`
`three
`
`days
`
`later,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`advised
`
`SLA
`
`that
`
`the
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`not
`
`copied
`
`on this
`
`nor was
`
`the email
`
`ever
`
`drawings
`
`were
`
`only
`
`50% complete.
`
`email,
`
`forwarded
`
`to Plaintiff.
`
`38.
`
`On June
`
`29, 2020,
`
`SLA sent
`
`an email
`
`to Plaintiff,
`
`stating
`
`"now
`
`that
`
`the schematic
`
`design
`
`has
`
`been
`
`approved,
`
`we
`
`are in the
`
`process
`
`of
`
`developing
`
`the
`
`functionality,
`
`materials,
`
`and
`
`finishes
`
`of
`
`the
`
`interior."
`
`Having
`
`recently
`
`discussed
`
`obtaining
`
`approval
`
`from
`
`the Town,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`led to believe
`
`that
`
`said
`
`"approval"
`
`was
`
`from the DOB.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`later
`
`that
`
`had
`
`been made
`
`at
`
`that
`
`39.
`
`However,
`
`discovered
`
`no further
`
`progress
`
`time
`
`regarding
`
`the permits.
`
`40.
`
`On July
`
`15, 2020,
`
`SLA advised
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`it had spoken
`
`with
`
`Ferrantello
`
`and the
`
`site plan
`
`filing
`
`would
`
`be ready
`
`the following
`
`week.
`
`41.
`
`However,
`
`that was
`
`not
`
`the
`
`case
`
`because,
`
`two
`
`weeks
`
`later
`
`on July
`
`28,
`
`2020,
`
`SLA
`
`forwarded
`
`an
`
`email
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`Ferrantello
`
`seeking
`
`the
`
`original
`
`title
`
`report
`
`from
`
`when
`
`6
`
`8 of
`
`23
`
`10 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`:
`/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`07
`11:
`2 4
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`Plaintiff
`
`purchased
`
`the Premises.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and belief,
`
`the report
`
`was
`
`requested
`
`as part
`
`of
`
`site plan
`
`filing
`
`preparation,
`
`and that
`
`the site plan was
`
`still
`
`not
`
`ready
`
`for
`
`submission.
`
`42.
`
`On July
`
`31, 2020,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`finally
`
`received
`
`direct
`
`communication
`
`from Ferrantello,
`
`whereby
`
`Ferrantello
`
`requested
`
`that Plaintiff,
`
`SLA
`
`and Ferrantello
`
`meet
`
`to discuss
`
`various
`
`issues.
`
`43.
`
`On August
`
`4, 2020,
`
`when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`asked SLA what
`
`the issues
`
`to be discussed
`
`were,
`
`"fme-tuning"
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`per
`
`Town
`
`code
`
`SLA
`
`merely
`
`stated
`
`that SLA
`
`and
`
`Ferrantello
`
`were
`
`the
`
`requirements,
`
`insisted
`
`that
`
`they
`
`did
`
`not
`
`need
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`input
`
`and
`
`that
`
`"nothing
`
`[was]
`
`radically
`
`changing."
`
`44.
`
`By mid-August,
`
`when
`
`SLA
`
`could
`
`no
`
`longer
`
`withhold
`
`information
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff
`
`about
`
`the delays
`
`in site plan
`
`design,
`
`SLA began
`
`blaming
`
`all delays
`
`on Ferrantello.
`
`45.
`
`Despite
`
`its repeated
`
`representations
`
`that
`
`the architectural
`
`set and civil
`
`site plan were
`
`for
`
`SLA
`
`Plaintiff
`
`it still
`
`had not
`
`received
`
`site
`
`almost
`
`ready
`
`filing,
`
`on August
`
`24, 2020,
`
`advised
`
`that
`
`plan
`
`drawings
`
`and that
`
`it would
`
`likely
`
`not
`
`obtain
`
`plan
`
`approval
`
`from the Town
`
`for
`
`another
`
`month.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Finally,
`
`on September
`
`22, 2020,
`
`the finished
`
`site plan was provided
`
`by Ferrantello.
`
`However,
`
`the process
`
`was
`
`still
`
`not
`
`complete.
`
`On October
`
`15,
`
`2020,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`received
`
`an
`
`email
`
`from
`
`SLA
`
`containing
`
`a filing
`
`receipt
`
`from the Town.
`
`49.
`
`On October
`
`when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`asked
`
`for
`
`SLA advised
`
`that
`
`further
`
`26, 2020,
`
`an update,
`
`documents
`
`were
`
`requested
`
`by
`
`the Town,
`
`which
`
`would
`
`be filed
`
`the next
`
`day.
`
`50.
`
`On October
`
`27, 2020,
`
`SLA informed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`requiring
`
`preliminary
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`approval,
`
`the Town
`
`apparently
`
`required
`
`all
`
`drawings
`
`to be submitted
`
`concurrently
`
`and
`
`advised
`
`that SLA either
`
`"got
`
`it wrong
`
`or
`
`they
`
`changed
`
`the
`
`procedure,"
`
`further
`
`indicating
`
`SLA's
`
`complete
`
`lack
`
`of knowledge
`
`regarding
`
`the permit
`
`filing
`
`process
`
`in the Town.
`
`7
`
`9 of
`
`23
`
`11 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`:
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`1
`DOC.
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`07/29/2022
`NYSCEF:
`
`51.
`
`Finally,
`
`on November
`
`13, 2020,
`
`the
`
`error
`
`in filing
`
`was
`
`revealed
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`received
`
`an email
`
`from BPZ stating
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`required
`
`an application
`
`for
`
`permits
`
`to
`
`be submitted
`
`to its Department
`
`of Engineering,
`
`not
`
`the DOB,
`
`and that
`
`the
`
`filing
`
`would
`
`require
`
`a
`
`series
`
`of documents
`
`that
`
`had not been
`
`prepared
`
`for
`
`submission
`
`to the DOB.
`
`52.
`
`Following
`
`that
`
`revelation,
`
`on November
`
`23, 2020
`
`SLA
`
`emailed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`regarding
`
`up"
`
`Ferrantello
`
`the error,
`
`stating
`
`that
`
`the DQB "screwed
`
`and that
`
`the delay
`
`was
`
`because
`
`took
`
`six
`
`months
`
`to complete
`
`its drawings.
`
`53.
`
`By
`
`June
`
`2021,
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`documents
`
`still
`
`had
`
`not
`
`been
`
`filed
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Town's
`
`Department
`
`of Engineering
`
`and,
`
`thus,
`
`a year-and-a-half
`
`after
`
`commencing
`
`design
`
`of
`
`the Project,
`
`the permits
`
`had not been
`
`issued.
`
`54.
`
`Around
`
`that
`
`same
`
`time,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`abandoned
`
`the Project
`
`due to, upon
`
`information
`
`hired
`
`Tom Fulazzola
`
`of
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`irreconcilable
`
`differences
`
`with
`
`SLA.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil
`
`Insites
`
`(the
`
`"New
`
`Engineer")
`
`as a replacement.
`
`55.
`
`The New Engineer
`
`reviewed
`
`the
`
`drawings
`
`and
`
`documents
`
`that were
`
`prepared
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`and
`
`found
`
`numerous
`
`errors,
`
`56.
`
`When
`
`the New Engineer
`
`reached
`
`out
`
`to SLA and BPZ
`
`to request
`
`a conference
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff
`
`about
`
`the unresolved
`
`permit
`
`filing
`
`issues,
`
`SLA refused
`
`to meet
`
`until
`
`it had
`
`a chance
`
`to
`
`the
`
`architectural
`
`drawings.
`
`SLA also
`
`confer
`
`one-on-one
`
`with
`
`BPZ about
`
`what
`
`was
`
`required
`
`for
`
`refused
`
`to agree
`
`to Ferrantello's
`
`attendance
`
`at any meeting.
`
`57,
`
`When
`
`Plaintiff
`
`insisted
`
`SLA attend,
`
`SLA responded
`
`that
`
`it had filed
`
`its architectural
`
`plans
`
`back
`
`in August
`
`2020
`
`and that
`
`it was
`
`"unfamiliar
`
`with
`
`the Islip
`
`filing
`
`process,
`
`which
`
`everyone
`
`has
`
`known
`
`since
`
`the job
`
`began,"
`
`outright
`
`admitting
`
`its
`
`total
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`knowledge
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`8
`
`10
`
`of
`
`23
`
`12 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`|F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`:
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`11:
`2 4
`AM)
`NYSCEF
`1
`DOC.
`NO.
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`Town's
`
`permit
`
`filing
`
`process,
`
`which
`
`led to the eighteen-month
`
`delay
`
`in filing
`
`and the preparation
`
`of drawings
`
`that were
`
`utterly
`
`useless
`
`and not
`
`compliance
`
`with
`
`Town
`
`codes.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`the New Engineer
`
`began
`
`coordinating
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`Engineering
`
`Department
`
`independent
`
`of SLA and PBZ.
`
`59.
`
`In July
`
`2021,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`received
`
`a list of documents
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`directly
`
`from
`
`a
`
`representative
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Engineering
`
`Department
`
`and
`
`began
`
`compiling
`
`those
`
`documents
`
`independently.
`
`60.
`
`On October
`
`25, 2021,
`
`an Engineering
`
`Department
`
`representative
`
`informed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`had the original,
`
`1978
`
`site plan
`
`for
`
`the Premises
`
`on file,
`
`and that
`
`it could
`
`be used
`
`for
`
`the permit
`
`application.
`
`61.
`
`In other
`
`words,
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`1978
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`rendered
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`drafting
`
`process
`
`obsolete.
`
`the
`
`permit
`
`process
`
`in the
`
`62.
`
`SLA
`
`did
`
`not
`
`take
`
`the time
`
`to properly
`
`understand
`
`filing
`
`Town,
`
`induced
`
`Plaintiff
`
`into
`
`unnecessarily
`
`paying
`
`for a civil
`
`engineer,
`
`and caused
`
`a delay
`
`of almost
`
`two
`
`years
`
`in the process
`
`of obtaining
`
`permits
`
`for
`
`the Project,
`
`all
`
`the while
`
`preparing
`
`drawings
`
`that
`
`SLA knew
`
`or should
`
`have
`
`known
`
`were
`
`not
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`Town
`
`code
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`totally
`
`useless.
`
`63.
`
`In addition
`
`to the
`
`foregoing,
`
`SLA also
`
`committed
`
`multiple
`
`measurement
`
`errors
`
`in
`
`its drawings
`
`prepared
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`with
`
`the Town,
`
`which
`
`made
`
`the drawings
`
`unsuitable
`
`for
`
`submission
`
`and further
`
`delayed
`
`the
`
`filing
`
`process.
`
`64.
`
`When
`
`Ferrantello
`
`pointed
`
`out
`
`to SLA on multiple
`
`occasions
`
`that SLA's
`
`drawings
`
`did
`
`not
`
`comport
`
`with
`
`Ferrantello's
`
`measurements
`
`or with
`
`Town
`
`regulations,
`
`SLA
`
`dismissed
`
`those
`
`warnings.
`
`9
`
`11
`
`of
`
`23
`
`13 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`FILED
`SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`:
`/ 2 9 /2
`07
`02
`2
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`614720/2022
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`65.
`
`This
`
`led to multiple
`
`disagreements
`
`between
`
`Ferrantello
`
`and SLA,
`
`all of which
`
`were
`
`unbeknownst
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`and which,
`
`upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`Ferrantello
`
`abandoning
`
`the Project.
`
`66.
`
`For
`
`example,
`
`on
`
`August
`
`10,
`
`2020,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`contacted
`
`SLA
`
`regarding
`
`discrepancies
`
`between
`
`SLA's
`
`architectural
`
`footprint
`
`and Ferrantello's
`
`survey
`
`of
`
`the building.
`
`67.
`
`Instead
`
`of
`
`resolving
`
`the
`
`discrepancy,
`
`SLA insisted
`
`the
`
`difference
`
`would
`
`not
`
`affect
`
`approval
`
`replied
`
`that
`
`some
`
`site plan
`
`and could
`
`be resolved
`
`later
`
`by a contractor.
`
`When
`
`Ferrantello
`
`of
`
`the overall
`
`dimensions
`
`were
`
`not
`
`the same, SLA did
`
`not
`
`take
`
`the time
`
`to remedy
`
`the defects.
`
`68.
`
`When
`
`the New Engineer
`
`reviewed
`
`the drawings
`
`in June
`
`2021
`
`for
`
`submission
`
`to the
`
`Town,
`
`it noted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`layout
`
`of
`
`the
`
`civil
`
`site
`
`plan
`
`did
`
`not match
`
`the
`
`layout
`
`of
`
`the
`
`architectural
`
`drawings
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`the site plan was
`
`not
`
`ready
`
`for
`
`submission.
`
`of
`
`the
`
`clinic's
`
`cellar
`
`would
`
`be
`
`69.
`
`In another
`
`instance,
`
`SLA was well
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`part
`
`used
`
`as a boarding
`
`space
`
`for
`
`animals
`
`and the
`
`other
`
`part would
`
`be used
`
`for
`
`storage.
`
`However,
`
`on
`
`the
`
`architectural
`
`set prepared
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`with
`
`the Town,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`also
`
`sent
`
`to Ferrantello
`
`for
`
`its
`
`calculations,
`
`SLA
`
`labeled
`
`the entire
`
`cellar
`
`space
`
`as a veterinary
`
`office.
`
`70.
`
`Because
`
`the
`
`storage
`
`space
`
`was
`
`not
`
`properly
`
`indicated
`
`in the
`
`drawings,
`
`Ferrantello
`
`footage
`
`from the overall
`
`dimensions
`
`used
`
`to calculate
`
`did not
`
`subtract
`
`the storage
`
`square
`
`how many
`
`parking
`
`spaces
`
`were
`
`required
`
`by the Town.
`
`71.
`
`This
`
`led
`
`to an argument
`
`between
`
`SLA
`
`and Ferrantello
`
`in August
`
`2020
`
`over
`
`how
`
`many
`
`parking
`
`spaces
`
`the Premises
`
`were
`
`required
`
`by
`
`law to have based
`
`on the zoning
`
`classifications
`
`for
`
`the clinic.
`
`72.
`
`Ferrantello
`
`asserted
`
`that,
`
`according
`
`to the dimensions
`
`as labeled
`
`in the architectural
`
`set
`
`of
`
`drawings,
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`of
`
`Islip
`
`Subdivision
`
`and
`
`Land
`
`Development
`
`Regulations
`
`§68-284
`
`10
`
`12
`
`of
`
`23
`
`14 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F ILED
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`:
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`required
`
`a minimum
`
`of
`
`sixty-two
`
`parking
`
`spaces.
`
`But
`
`SLA
`
`insisted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of parking
`
`spaces
`
`was
`
`excessive
`
`for
`
`the scope
`
`of
`
`the Project.
`
`73.
`
`Ferrantello
`
`ultimately
`
`relented
`
`to SLA's
`
`persistent
`
`demands
`
`to reduce
`
`the
`
`number
`
`of parking
`
`spaces,
`
`despite
`
`the clear
`
`requirements
`
`of
`
`the Town
`
`code,
`
`and revised
`
`its design.
`
`74.
`
`In June
`
`2021,
`
`when
`
`the New Engineer
`
`reviewed
`
`the civil
`
`site plan
`
`and architectural
`
`set
`
`that were
`
`to be submitted
`
`to the Town,
`
`the New Engineer
`
`determined
`
`that
`
`the number
`
`of parking
`
`spaces
`
`planned
`
`for
`
`the Project
`
`fell
`
`short
`
`of
`
`the Town's
`
`requirements.
`
`75.
`
`Thus,
`
`SLA's
`
`negligence
`
`in mislabeling
`
`the classification
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cellar
`
`dimensions
`
`resulted
`
`in the architectural
`
`drawings
`
`being
`
`unusable
`
`for
`
`filing.
`
`76.
`
`The New Engineer
`
`also
`
`found
`
`numerous
`
`other
`
`errors
`
`with
`
`the
`
`architectural
`
`set of
`
`drawings
`
`prepared
`
`by
`
`SLA
`
`that made
`
`it
`
`unsuitable
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`Department
`
`of
`
`Engineering,
`
`such
`
`as:
`
`the site layout
`
`did
`
`not match
`
`the civil
`
`set;
`
`(ii)
`
`the lot area
`
`did
`
`(i)
`
`engineering
`
`not match
`
`the civil
`
`engineering
`
`set;
`
`(iii)
`
`the zone was
`
`identified
`
`as
`
`"Commercial"
`
`when
`
`it should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`"Business
`
`2,"
`
`(iv)
`
`the set stated
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`one
`
`floor
`
`when
`
`there
`
`were
`
`two;
`
`(v)
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`floor
`
`plan
`
`was
`
`labeled
`
`"Kennel,"
`
`which
`
`created
`
`a zoning
`
`issue;
`
`(vi)
`
`the
`
`set
`
`lacked
`
`any
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the
`
`adjacent
`
`tenant;
`
`and
`
`(vii)
`
`the space
`
`lacked
`
`A.D.A.
`
`access.
`
`despite
`
`language
`
`in the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`77.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the extensive
`
`indicating
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`preferences
`
`would
`
`be taken
`
`into
`
`account
`
`for
`
`every
`
`aspect
`
`of design,
`
`there were multiple
`
`instances
`
`where
`
`SLA
`
`either
`
`completely
`
`ignored
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`feedback
`
`or did
`
`not
`
`ask Plaintiff's
`
`opinion
`
`at all before
`
`finalizing
`
`a design.
`
`78.
`
`When
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`representatives
`
`protested
`
`certain
`
`aspects
`
`of
`
`the
`
`design
`
`in
`
`July
`
`2020,
`
`SLA agreed
`
`to amend
`
`the
`
`design
`
`without
`
`charge
`
`for
`
`the
`
`time
`
`it would
`
`take
`
`for
`
`redesign.
`
`11
`
`13
`
`of
`
`23
`
`15 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`F I LED :
`SUFFOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`However,
`
`SLA continued
`
`to bill Plaintiff
`
`for hourly
`
`work,
`
`including
`
`an additional
`
`$7,624
`
`of hourly
`
`work
`
`just
`
`for
`
`the following
`
`month
`
`of August,
`
`2020.
`
`79.
`
`Despite
`
`all of
`
`the problems
`
`with
`
`the Project
`
`caused
`
`by SLA's
`
`negligence,
`
`SLA still
`
`proceeded
`
`to bill
`
`Plaintiff
`
`well
`
`beyond
`
`that which
`
`was
`
`represented
`
`by
`
`the Architect
`
`Agreement,
`
`and for
`
`far
`
`less work
`
`than was
`
`promised.
`
`80.
`
`Upon
`
`information
`
`and
`
`belief,
`
`SLA
`
`represented
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Bank
`
`that
`
`the
`
`cost
`
`of
`
`its
`
`would
`
`services
`
`be approximately
`
`$40,000.
`
`81.
`
`As
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`above,
`
`the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`reflected
`
`that
`
`a flat
`
`fee
`
`of
`
`$47,500
`
`would
`
`be charged
`
`for
`
`Base
`
`Architectural
`
`Services
`
`while
`
`Infrastructure
`
`and
`
`Fagade
`
`Renovation
`
`were
`
`to be billed
`
`hourly
`
`at an estimated
`
`total
`
`of $40-$60,000.
`
`82.
`
`Despite
`
`an expected
`
`total
`
`approximately
`
`$80,000-$100,000,
`
`by
`
`July
`
`2020,
`
`just
`
`six
`
`months
`
`into
`
`the Project
`
`and prior
`
`to the
`
`successful
`
`filing
`
`of a permit
`
`application,
`
`SLA had already
`
`Plaintiff
`
`$69,861
`
`related
`
`work
`
`proved
`
`to be useless.
`
`billed
`
`for
`
`drawings
`
`and
`
`that ultimately
`
`83.
`
`In subsequent
`
`correspondence
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SLA stated
`
`that
`
`$43,870
`
`of
`
`that
`
`bill
`
`was
`
`attributed
`
`to
`
`the
`
`hourly
`
`Infrastructure
`
`and
`
`Fagade
`
`Renovation
`
`fee,
`
`originally
`
`estimated
`
`at
`
`$40,000-$60,000,
`
`even
`
`though,
`
`the proposed
`
`solution
`
`for
`
`renovating
`
`the old
`
`façade
`
`was not usable.
`
`84.
`
`In addition,
`
`"design
`
`development"
`
`is listed
`
`in the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`as part
`
`of
`
`Base Architectural
`
`Services
`
`and is included
`
`in the list
`
`of
`
`items
`
`covered
`
`the $47,500
`
`flat
`
`fee.
`
`by
`
`development"
`
`85.
`
`However,
`
`each
`
`invoice
`
`has a section
`
`entitled
`
`"design
`
`that
`
`indicates
`
`work
`
`billed
`
`at an hourly
`
`rate
`
`for
`
`each
`
`of
`
`the SLA professionals
`
`working
`
`on the Project.
`
`86.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`hourly
`
`billing
`
`on
`
`every
`
`invoice
`
`simply
`
`lists
`
`the
`
`professional
`
`who
`
`performed
`
`work
`
`under
`
`the
`
`broad
`
`categories
`
`of
`
`"design
`
`development"
`
`and
`
`"construction
`
`documents"
`
`without
`
`providing
`
`any detail
`
`as to what
`
`services
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`being
`
`charged
`
`for.
`
`12
`
`14
`
`of
`
`23
`
`16 of 50
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2022 11:15 AM
`|F I LED :
`SUF FOLK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19
`0 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 2
`2 4
`11:
`AM|
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`1
`NO.
`
`INDEX NO. 614720/2022
`INDEX
`NO.
`614720/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2022
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`07/29/2022
`
`87.
`
`On
`
`July
`
`23,
`
`2020,
`
`as the
`
`total
`
`amount
`
`for
`
`the Architect
`
`Agreement
`
`was
`
`reached
`
`and
`
`little
`
`had
`
`been
`
`properly
`
`designed,
`
`the Bank
`
`advised
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`not
`
`disburse
`
`more money
`
`for
`
`payment
`
`to SLA
`
`until
`
`progress
`
`was made
`
`on obtaining
`
`the permits.
`
`nearly
`
`any
`
`88.
`
`Nevertheless,
`
`even
`
`though
`
`SLA
`
`and the other
`
`consultants
`
`were
`
`never
`
`able
`
`to obtain
`
`or even
`
`file
`
`the applications
`
`with
`
`the Town,
`
`SLA continued
`
`to bill
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a permit,
`
`successfully
`
`significant
`
`amounts.
`
`89.
`
`During
`
`the summer
`
`of 2020,
`
`the New Engineer
`
`and a representative
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`met
`
`the Town
`
`engineers,
`
`who were
`
`responsible
`
`for
`
`handling
`
`the Project
`
`upon
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`effort
`
`to now
`
`apply
`
`with
`
`the Town's
`
`Department
`
`of Engineering,
`
`90.
`
`The
`
`Town's
`
`engineers
`
`advised
`
`that
`
`the
`
`building
`
`footprint
`
`as
`
`designed
`
`was
`
`unacceptable,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the Project
`
`could
`
`not
`
`be constructed
`
`with
`
`the
`
`vestibule
`
`or
`
`light
`
`well
`
`as
`
`the flow
`
`of
`
`the Project.
`
`designed
`
`due to the lack
`
`of parking
`
`and
`
`91.
`
`The
`
`Town
`
`engineers
`
`advised
`
`tha