Ween & Kozek Complaint -- Draft, May 2025¶
GUARDRAIL: WHITE -- ORIENTATION ONLY
Navigation and context for the W&K draft complaint. No legal strategy, no damages calculations, no evidence analysis.
Source Document
Download Draft Verified Complaint (PDF) -- Ween & Kozek, PLLC | Prepared May 7, 2025 | Pending Filing
PART A -- Purpose & Relationship to Case¶
This page documents the draft verified complaint prepared by Ween & Kozek, PLLC on May 7, 2025. This is the current proposed pleading for Christian Gray v. American Package Co., Inc., submitted for client review prior to filing.
This page is one of three complaint-related pages in Vol 00:
| Page | Function |
|---|---|
| Sandercock Complaint -- Filed (2021) | Documents the original filed complaint (Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP) |
| This page | Documents the W&K draft complaint (current proposed filing) |
| Claims & Electables Architecture | Maps causes of action to binder proof modules; identifies 14 additional claim/remedy vehicles |
The draft complaint was prepared by counsel and submitted for client approval. Prior to authorizing filing, the client undertook a comprehensive case analysis to verify that each cause of action is fully supported by documentary evidence, identify what additional claims the evidence might support, understand the complete damages landscape, and evaluate strategic options for filing, amendment, or parallel proceedings. This binder is the product of that analysis. It validates the draft's 8 causes of action and identifies 14 additional claim/remedy vehicles ("electables") that the evidence supports but the draft does not currently include.
The two complaints differ in significant ways:
| Element | Sandercock Filing (2021) | W&K Draft (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel | Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP | Ween & Kozek, PLLC |
| Defendants | American Package Co., Inc. AND Martin Kofman | American Package Co., Inc. only |
| Causes of Action | 7 | 8 |
| Paragraphs | 1--61 | 1--114 |
| Pages | 12 | 17 |
| Premises Address | 226 Franklin St. a/k/a 97 Green St. | 226 Franklin St. a/k/a 97 Green St. a/k/a 100 Freeman St. |
| New Theories | -- | Stipulation breach, legalization fraud, unjust enrichment, insurance fraud |
| Punitive Damages | Not demanded | $5,000,000 (First Cause) |
| Displacement Period | 18+ months | 5+ years |
| Status | Filed (NYSCEF, March 16, 2021) | Pending filing -- under client review |
PART B -- Filing Details¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings |
| Caption | Christian Gray v. American Package Co., Inc. |
| Prepared By | Ween & Kozek, PLLC |
| Signatory | Michael P. Kozek |
| Firm Address | 20 Jay Street, Suite 814, Brooklyn, NY 11201 |
| Phone | (212) 964-1822 |
| Date Prepared | May 7, 2025 |
| Status | PENDING FILING -- Under Client Review |
| Page Count | 17 |
| Paragraphs | 1--114 |
| Causes of Action | 8 (see numbering note below) |
| Exhibits Attached | None |
The draft complaint is available for review:
Download Draft Verified Complaint (PDF)
Numbering Artifact
The draft contains a drafting artifact where "Fifth Cause of Action" appears twice: paragraphs 93--98 (Fraud/Legalization) and paragraphs 99--104 (Unjust Enrichment). The binder treats these as 8 distinct causes of action for mapping purposes. Causes are numbered 1--8 throughout this page and the Claims & Electables Architecture.
PART C -- Parties & Representation¶
C.1 Plaintiff¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Name | Christian Gray |
| Residence | City of New York, County of Kings (para. 1) |
| Premises | 226 Franklin Street a/k/a 97 Green Street a/k/a 100 Freeman Street, Brooklyn, NY (para. 2) |
| Unit | G21 |
| Status | Loft Law protected tenant (Article 7-C, MDL Sections 280 et seq.) (para. 5) |
| Occupation | Sound/music engineer; recording studio in Premises (paras. 6--8) |
| Attorneys | Ween & Kozek, PLLC |
| Signatory | Michael P. Kozek |
C.2 Defendant¶
American Package Co., Inc.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Type | Corporation |
| Role | Owner of the Premises since February 15, 1996 (para. 2) |
| Address | 226 Franklin Street a/k/a 97 Green Street a/k/a 100 Freeman Street, Brooklyn, NY |
| Principal | Martin Kofman (referenced paras. 21--22; not named as defendant) |
Note: The W&K draft names only American Package Co., Inc. as defendant. Martin Kofman is referenced in the factual allegations as "Defendant's principal" (paras. 21--22) but is not named individually. The original Sandercock complaint (2021) named both American Package Co. and Kofman as defendants. For the binder's analysis of Kofman's individual liability and the option to reinstate him, see Claims & Electables Architecture, Electable #14.
PART D -- Factual Allegations Summary¶
The complaint's factual allegations span paragraphs 1 through 69, organized under four headings.
D.1 The Premises (paras. 4--18)¶
The complaint establishes the building as an Interim Multiple Dwelling subject to the Loft Law (Article 7-C, MDL Sections 280 et seq.). Plaintiff is the Loft Law-protected tenant of Unit G21, which served as both his home and the location of his recording studio used professionally as a sound/music engineer (paras. 5--8). Plaintiff expended significant sums building out the unit, including two recording rooms/booths built for optimal acoustics with high-end professional equipment (para. 7). Defendant knew of the recording studio use and that plaintiff derived income from it (para. 8).
The complaint alleges that defendant was required to bring the building into code compliance by statutory deadlines but has failed to meet any legalization milestone, leaving the building in an "endless state of noncompliance and disrepair" (paras. 9--11).
Paragraphs 12--18 detail a legalization fraud scheme: during the Loft Board narrative statement process, plaintiff and defendant reached an agreement for a revised unit layout to be incorporated through a post-approval amendment ("PAA"). The complaint alleges defendant intentionally made oral representations about the PAA knowing it would not follow through, in order to induce plaintiff to refrain from filing Comments and/or Alternate Plans with the Loft Board. When plaintiff raised the issue in 2021, defendant refused to honor the agreement and claimed plaintiff had waived his rights by not filing Comments. The Loft Board has since found that plaintiff "waived" his right to the revised layout (paras. 15--17).
D.2 The Flood (paras. 19--25)¶
In October 2019, a pipe above the Premises burst due to defendant's negligent failure to legalize and maintain the building, causing a catastrophic flood with several feet of standing water throughout the unit (para. 19). Plaintiff immediately informed defendant's office, but Mr. Kofman mandated no action until his return to New York City -- which did not occur for four to six weeks (paras. 20--22). During this period plaintiff acted on his own initiative and at his own expense to mitigate damage, acquiring protective gear, fans, and equipment (paras. 23--24). Despite these efforts, the Premises and all fixtures, improvements, and a substantial portion of personal property were destroyed beyond repair (para. 25).
D.3 Destruction of the Premises and Stipulation Breach (paras. 26--62)¶
By the time Kofman returned, mold infestation was immediately apparent through sight and smell (paras. 26--27). Defendant did not hire trained professionals for any remedial work until nearly two years later, in July 2021 (para. 29). The complaint details plaintiff's own fixture installations as a Loft Law tenant -- walls, floors, electrical system, kitchen, bathroom, living areas, bedrooms, and two recording studios with multiple layers of sound attenuation -- all at his own cost and expense (para. 30).
Insurance fraud allegations (paras. 31--33): Defendant reported the flood to its insurance carrier, falsely represented that plaintiff's fixtures belonged to defendant in order to fraudulently obtain the insurance proceeds, and retained those funds without disbursing any to plaintiff.
Expert inspection (paras. 34--36): Plaintiff retained Ed Olmsted (Olmsted Environmental Services) who inspected the unit on June 15, 2020 and concluded that demolition and mold remediation was required throughout the two recording studios, bathroom, ceilings, floors, and wall insulation.
Prior proceedings (paras. 37--38): Plaintiff commenced an HP proceeding in Housing Court and a related Supreme Court proceeding (the Sandercock filing).
Stipulation breach (paras. 39--59): The Stipulation of Settlement dated June 29, 2021 required completion of remediation work defined by a 10-item scope of work (Exhibit 1). ServPro conducted work from July 20--27, 2021. Olmsted and ALC Environmental verbally agreed additional work was required (para. 48), but defendant failed to arrange for it (para. 50). The Second Olmsted Report (August 18, 2021) found elevated mold spore levels and visible mold, concluding further abatement was necessary (paras. 52--55). Paragraphs 56(a) through 56(j) enumerate ten specific scope-of-work items that ServPro failed to complete, including: gut demolition incomplete in rooms 1--3 (only one layer of sheetrock removed); wood flooring not removed to slab in room 1; ceilings not removed in rooms 1 and 2; bathroom raised floor not removed; sheetrock left in place with visible mold on shared walls; required probe cuts not performed. Paragraph 57 alleges defendant caused its representatives to file falsified affidavits claiming the work was performed, "which they later recanted and admitted to the Court."
Current conditions (paras. 60--62): The Premises remains a construction zone with open and destroyed walls, active leaks and mold, and no working bathroom or kitchen. Defendant's repeated refusals to remediate are characterized as part of broader efforts to coerce plaintiff and other tenants to vacate.
D.4 Effects on Plaintiff (paras. 63--69)¶
Plaintiff has been unable to live in the Premises from October 2019 to the present -- over five years of displacement (para. 63). He has been forced to find and pay for numerous alternate housing arrangements (para. 64) and incurred substantial costs related to relocation, housing, utilities, food, travel, and loss of employment and income (para. 65). He experienced extraordinary stress compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic (para. 66) and lost income due to cleanup efforts, stress, and loss of his recording studios (para. 67). All injuries are alleged to have been proximately caused by defendant's misconduct and reasonably foreseeable at the time the Stipulation was executed (para. 68).
PART E -- Causes of Action¶
E.1 Summary Table¶
| # | Cause of Action | Paragraphs | Key Basis | Damages Demanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Breach of Warranty of Habitability | 70--76 | RPL Section 235-b(1); MDL Sections 282-a, 286(13) | $500K property/expenses + $1M income + $5M punitive |
| 2 | Breach of Contract -- Stipulation | 77--81 | HP Stipulation of Settlement (June 29, 2021) | $500K property/expenses + $1M income |
| 3 | Breach of Contract -- Legalization | 82--86 | PAA agreement during Loft Board process | Damages TBD at trial |
| 4 | Specific Performance / Permanent Injunction | 87--92 | Equitable relief; PAA implementation | Injunctive relief |
| 5 | Fraud -- Legalization (PAA/Waiver) | 93--98 | Intentional misrepresentation re: PAA | Damages TBD at trial |
| 6 | Unjust Enrichment -- Insurance Proceeds | 99--104 | False insurance claim; retention of funds | Damages TBD at trial |
| 7 | Fraud -- Insurance Misrepresentation | 105--110 | Fraudulent inducement re: insurance | Damages TBD at trial |
| 8 | Attorneys' Fees | 111--114 | Lease reciprocal provision; RPL Section 234 | Fees TBD at trial |
E.2 Cause-by-Cause Detail¶
First Cause of Action -- Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability (paras. 70--76)
Breach of RPL Section 235-b(1) arising from defendant's continued failure to remediate unlawful conditions, repair the Premises, and render it fit for human habitation. The complaint cites MDL Sections 282-a and 286(13) and Loft Board regulations as establishing plaintiff's entitlement to habitability protections. Damages: at least $500,000 in damaged property and out-of-pocket expenses, and $1,000,000 in lost income, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Punitive damages: at least $5,000,000 based on the "wanton and intentional nature" of defendant's misconduct. Additionally seeks a judgment directing defendant to restore the Premises to a habitable state in accordance with MDL Section 282-a, 286(13), RPL Section 235-b, Administrative Code Sections 27-2001 et seq., and 29 RCNY Sections 2-04(b) and (c).
Second Cause of Action -- Breach of Contract -- The Stipulation (paras. 77--81)
Breach of the Stipulation of Settlement (June 29, 2021) by failing to arrange for completion of all additional mold remediation work required thereunder. The complaint invokes established New York case law that a breach of stipulation of settlement is actionable under general breach of contract principles. Damages: at least $500,000 in damaged property and out-of-pocket expenses, and $1,000,000 in lost income, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Third Cause of Action -- Breach of Contract -- Legalization (paras. 82--86)
Breach of defendant's agreement to incorporate the revised layout for the Premises into its legalization plans through the PAA. Plaintiff alleges damages from defendant's failure and refusal to honor this agreement. Damages to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Fourth Cause of Action -- Specific Performance / Permanent Injunction (paras. 87--92)
Equitable relief arising from defendant's breach of the PAA agreement. The complaint characterizes it as inequitable to permit defendant to benefit from breaching the agreement when the Premises is plaintiff's home and the Loft Law legalization process exists to protect his tenancy. Seeks: (a) specific performance directing defendant to incorporate the revised layout through the PAA, and (b) a permanent injunction preventing defendant from performing work inconsistent with the revised plans that would make implementation physically or financially infeasible.
Fifth Cause of Action -- Fraud / Fraudulent Inducement -- Legalization (paras. 93--98)
Fraudulent inducement based on defendant's knowing and intentional misrepresentation that it would incorporate the revised plans through the PAA, made to induce plaintiff to refrain from filing Comments and/or Alternate Plans with the Loft Board. Plaintiff alleges reasonable reliance resulting in loss of the opportunity to protect his interest in the revised plans. Damages to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Sixth Cause of Action -- Unjust Enrichment (paras. 99--104)
Unjust enrichment based on defendant's use of a false claim regarding plaintiff's personal property and possessions to obtain insurance coverage funds, which defendant retained at plaintiff's expense. The complaint characterizes the retention as "against equity and good conscience." Damages to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Seventh Cause of Action -- Fraud / Fraudulent Inducement -- Insurance (paras. 105--110)
Fraudulent inducement based on defendant's knowing and intentional misrepresentation that it intended to obtain insurance coverage for the damages to plaintiff and his property. Plaintiff alleges reasonable reliance to his detriment, and that defendant used the misrepresentation as part of a scheme to deny plaintiff financial compensation. Damages to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Eighth Cause of Action -- Attorneys' Fees (paras. 111--114)
Based on the reciprocal fee-shifting provision in plaintiff's most recent lease, made reciprocal under RPL Section 234 where defendant has defaulted on its obligations to maintain the building and Premises. Fees to be determined upon plaintiff prevailing, plus statutory interest and costs.
PART F -- Relief Requested (WHEREFORE)¶
The WHEREFORE clause requests judgment "in accordance with the foregoing" along with attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and "such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances." Unlike the Sandercock complaint, the W&K draft does not itemize relief cause-by-cause in the WHEREFORE. The specific damages figures appear within each individual cause of action.
| Cause | Specific Relief Sought |
|---|---|
| First | $500K property/expenses + $1M income + $5M punitive + order to restore Premises |
| Second | $500K property/expenses + $1M income |
| Third | Damages TBD |
| Fourth | Specific performance (PAA) + permanent injunction |
| Fifth | Damages TBD |
| Sixth | Damages TBD |
| Seventh | Damages TBD |
| Eighth | Attorneys' fees TBD |
| General | Prejudgment interest, costs, disbursements, further relief |
Note on overlapping damages: The First and Second causes of action contain identical base damage figures ($500,000 property/expenses + $1,000,000 income). These represent alternative legal theories for recovering from the same underlying harm, not additive totals. The First Cause alone adds $5,000,000 in punitive damages.
PART G -- Exhibits¶
No exhibits are attached to the W&K draft complaint. By contrast, the Sandercock complaint (2021) attached two exhibits. The relevant underlying documents are preserved in the binder:
| Sandercock Exhibit | Binder Location |
|---|---|
| Exhibit A -- Olmsted Microbial Survey (June 2020) | WT-107 (Olmsted Mold Inspection Report), White Vol 07 |
| Exhibit B -- Rent Invoice ($35,441.24) | Brown Vol 04 (rent restitution framework) |
PART H -- Binder Cross-References¶
H.1 Key Draft Allegations and Their Binder Support¶
| Draft Allegation | Paragraphs | Binder Source |
|---|---|---|
| Loft Law status and legalization failures | 4--11 | Brown Vol 04 (Loft Law framework); Yellow Vol 02 (enterprise doctrine) |
| PAA/legalization fraud scheme | 12--18 | Brown Vol 04; Purple T4 strategy |
| Flood event (October 2019) | 19--25 | WT-001 (Master Timeline); BT-100A (post-flood documentation) |
| Kofman delay / 4-6 week absence | 21--22 | WT-001; Red-OATH Vol 10 (harassment pattern) |
| Plaintiff's fixtures and recording studios | 7, 30 | Blue Vol 05 property damage tabs (BT-101 series) |
| Insurance fraud allegations | 31--33 | WT-103, WT-104, WT-115; Purple T1 strategy |
| Olmsted inspection and report | 34--36 | WT-107 (Olmsted report); WT-204 (Olmsted witness profile) |
| HP proceeding | 37 | WT-106 (scope: court-ordered vs. executed); HP Stipulation page |
| Supreme Court proceeding (Sandercock) | 38 | Sandercock Complaint -- Filed (2021) |
| Stipulation of Settlement | 39--46 | HP Stipulation page; WT-106, WT-108A |
| ServPro remediation failures | 47, 56(a)-(j) | WT-106A (SERVPRO field incident); WT-114 (scope manipulation compendium) |
| ALC/Olmsted post-remediation findings | 48--55 | WT-108 (ALC post-remediation); WT-109 (Olmsted response to ALC) |
| Falsified affidavits and court recantation | 57 | Purple T2 (fraud upon the court); PT-001 (false certification affidavits) |
| Current Premises conditions | 60 | WT-111 (July 2023 re-flood); WT-116 (G21 leaks); BT-100A |
| Coercion / efforts to force vacatur | 62 | Red-OATH Vol 10 (harassment vectors); Yellow Vol 02 (enterprise doctrine) |
| Five+ years displacement | 63--65 | Blue Tab 103 (alternative housing costs) |
| Lost income / recording studios | 66--67 | Red Vol 06 (Freeman Street opportunity damages) |
| COVID-19 compounding | 66 | Red Tab 106 (COVID timing multiplier) |
H.2 Related Pages¶
| Page | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Sandercock Complaint -- Filed (2021) | Original filed complaint -- prior pleading in same case |
| Claims & Electables Architecture | Maps W&K causes to binder proof modules; identifies 14 additional electables |
| HP Stipulation -- Release & Vacatur | Stipulation of Settlement referenced in Second Cause of Action |
| Case at a Glance | Narrative overview of the entire case |
| Facts Overview | Facts-only chronological framework |
| Damages Overview | Comprehensive damages landscape |
| White Vol 07 -- Evidence Repository | Source evidence for all factual allegations |
PART I -- Case Posture Note¶
This draft complaint was prepared by Ween & Kozek, PLLC on May 7, 2025 and submitted for client review prior to filing. It represents a substantial restructuring of the case compared to the original Sandercock filing (March 2021):
-
The Sandercock complaint named two defendants (American Package Co. and Martin Kofman individually); the W&K draft proceeds against American Package Co. only. For the binder's analysis of Kofman's individual liability and the option to reinstate him, see Claims & Electables Architecture, Electable #14.
-
The Sandercock complaint asserted seven causes of action focused on habitability, negligence, harassment, and Kofman's personal liability. The W&K draft asserts eight causes of action that add stipulation breach (Second Cause), legalization fraud (Third through Fifth Causes), unjust enrichment from insurance proceeds (Sixth Cause), and insurance fraud (Seventh Cause). These theories emerged from the intervening HP proceeding, insurance declination, and subsequent case development.
-
The W&K draft is the first complaint to demand punitive damages ($5,000,000, First Cause of Action), based on the "wanton and intentional nature" of defendant's misconduct.
-
The W&K draft addresses events through the present, documenting over five years of displacement compared to the 18 months covered by the Sandercock complaint.
-
The W&K draft includes the Freeman Street address (100 Freeman Street) alongside the Franklin/Green Street addresses, reflecting the building's three-address identity relevant to the Freeman Street damages analysis in Red Vol 06.
-
Beyond the 8 causes of action in this draft, the binder analysis has identified 14 additional claim/remedy vehicles ("electables") that the evidence supports. These are documented at Claims & Electables Architecture, Part C.
END -- Ween & Kozek Complaint -- Draft, May 2025 v1.1