You should be listening to Bob Dylan's "Idiot Wind" as you read this:
2011 WL 856924 (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Pleading)
Supreme Court of New York.
New York County
Nicole IMPRESCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
York Avenue PRESCHOOL, Defendant.
No. 11103085.
March 4, 2011.
Summons
Koehler & Isaacs LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 61 Broadway - 25th Floor, New York, NY 10006, (917) 551-1353, Mathew Paulose Jr., Esq. (MP6002).
TO THE DEFENDANT:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiffs attorney an answer to the complaint in this action within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
The basis of the venue designated is the defendant's place of business.
Dated: New York, New York
March 4, 2011
KOEHLER & ISAACS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
61 Broadway - 25th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(917) 551-1353
By: <>
MATHEW PAULOSE JR., ESQ. (MP6002)
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. Defendant York Avenue Preschool is a New York City preschool located at 1520 York Avenue, New York, New York.
2. Upon information and belief, defendant was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
3. The owner and president of defendant is Michael Branciforte, residing in Mount Kisco, New York.
4. Upon information and belief, Branciforte owns several other businesses, including at least one other preschool located in New York.
5. Plaintiff Nicole Imprescia is a resident of the County of New York.
6. Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and all other consumers of preschool services provided by defendant during the years 2009 through 2011.
7. Such other consumers have a common interest with plaintiff in the subject matter of this action, to wit they were promised services as explained below that were never provided.
INTRODUCTION
8. Plaintiff has one daughter named Lucia Imprescia, who is of preschool age. The two live on the upper east side of Manhattan.
9. Like many parents living in Manhattan, plaintiff places a priority on her child's preschool education.
10. “It is no secret that for many Manhattan parents, getting a child into the Ivy League starts in nursery school,” Worth, For $300 an Hour. Advice on Courting Elite Schools, NYT (Oct. 25, 2000). “[G]raduation from one of the top tier preschools will open doors to the best elementary schools, the best middle and high schools, and on to the Ivy League.” Raschka, The Real Words: Nursery School Admissions, Our Town, Upper East Side News (Apr. 8, 2009). Studies have shown entry into a good nursery school guarantees more income than entry into an average school. Goldman, The Baby Ivies, NYT (Jan. 12,2003).
11. As a result, there is tremendous pressure to choose the right preschool. “In a place as rich as Manhattan, the number of people willing to spend $15,000 a year for a limited number of private nursery school spots has mushroomed in recent years.” “The combination of runaway wealth and an urban baby boom has made private nursery school admissions insanely competitive.” Hemphill, Admissions Anxiety, NYT (Nov. 17, 2002).
12. Some stories even hint at criminal activity. The Prekindergarten Connection, NYT (Nov. 16, 2002) (favorable rating given to ATT stock by analyst Grubman in exchange for ATT Director Sanford Weil getting Grubman's children into private nursery school); Going for Broke, NYT (June 29, 2003) (favorable review given to Gov. Pataki during his election in exchange for Pataki getting public-relations owner's child into elite nursery school).
13. The process can be exhausting for parents. According to one parent, “It's the most humiliating part of living in Manhattan.” She continued:
“I found myself sitting on the floor of the West Side Montessori School gymnasium with 50 other mothers and fathers... We were deep into the annual nursery-school hunting season. The school's director was offering advice on getting through the preschool admissions process with our self-respect intact. ‘You are the consumers,’ she insisted, as we sat there like 3-year-olds, twitching and squirming and rearranging our legs. ‘I know you probably don't feel like it, but you are in charge of making the match:” Scott, How I Got My Child Into Nursery School, NYT (April 23, 1995).
14. Plaintiff Nicole Imprescia found herself in a similar situation back in 2009. And it was defendant York Avenue doing the sales pitch.
COUNT ONE
DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES
15. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above.
16. In or about the fall of 2009, plaintiff considered enrolling her daughter into defendant's preschool program.
17. Defendant claimed to plaintiff that defendant would prepare her daughter for the ERB, an exam required for admission into nearly all the elite private elementary schools.
18. Defendant claimed to plaintiff to be a certified ERB testing site. Gardner, Failing at Four. New York Magazine (Nov. 15, 1999) (explaining importance of ERB and being an ERB testing site).
19. Defendant boasted to plaintiff that it had a high success rate in getting its students into high caliber Manhattan elementary schools, both public and private.
20. Defendant's website states its “curriculum is developmental and is based on the guidelines of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and standards of the New York State Department of Education.”
21. The website states further its “responsibilities as educators are to prepare our children to leave the school with a love of learning. Confidence, ability to express themselves along with the knowledge of the alphabet and number correlations are all mastered in the Fours/Pre-K class.”
22. Most importantly, the website states that its “curriculum is designed for the specific age group: Twos, Threes or Fours. Included in the curriculum are age appropriate specials.”
23. These representations were made to plaintiff and other parents who were also considering enrolling their children with defendant,
24. Based on these representations, plaintiff and the other parents enrolled their children into defendant's preschool program.
25. By 2010, however, it became obvious that defendant's promises were a complete fraud.
26. Plaintiff's daughter, as well as the sons and daughters of the other parents, were dumped amongst each other, notwithstanding their age differences.
27. In one instance, plaintiff's daughter, who at the time was 4 - perhaps the most important year for a pre-schooler, just shy of taking the ERB - was dumped with 2 year olds.
28. Plaintiff's daughter was not being prepared to take the ERB as promised.
29. At age four, defendant was still teaching plaintiff's daughter about shapes and colors - a two-year old's learning environment.
30. In other words, there was no “curriculum designed for a specific age group” also as promised.
31. Indeed, the school proved not to be a school at all, but just one big playroom.
32. Plaintiff, as well as others similarly situated, had paid - up front - $19000 for admission each year based on defendant's representations.
33. Plaintiff brought her concerns to the attention of defendant's administrators.
34. The administrators acknowledged the falsehood.
35. In the fall of 2010, plaintiff demanded return of that year's advance payment of $19000.
36. Defendant refused to return her money.
37. New York State General Business Law 349 prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.”
38. The statute applies to the educational environment.
39. It prohibits educational institutions from engaging in false advertising, misrepresentations of the nature or quality of service provided, and bait and switch tactics.
40. Thus, based on the facts stated above, defendant has violated Section 349 of the General Business Law and plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to relief.
COUNT TWO
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
41. Plaintiff repeats all allegations in the complaint.
42. Defendant misrepresented the nature and quality of its services.
43. Defendant intended to lure plaintiff and others into the preschool program and pay the $19000 up-front fee.
44. Plaintiff and others justifiably relied on the representations.
45. Plaintiff and others were injured by such reliance.
46. As a result, defendant has engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to relief,
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands all permissible relief available under each respective count, including exemplary damages, costs, and attorneys fees. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
Dated: New York, New York
March 4, 2011
KOEHLER & ISAACS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
61 Broadway - 25th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(917) 551-1363
By: <>
MATHEW PAULOSE JR., ESQ. (MP6002)
No comments:
Post a Comment