Filing # 39526364 E-Filed 03/28/2016 03:05:57 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. _________________________

NICHOLAS GRAVANTE, JR.,

Plaintiff,
v.
ELINOR GRAVANTE,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Nicholas Gravante, Jr. (Gravante, Jr.) by his attorneys, GrayRobinson, for
his Complaint against Defendant Elinor Gravante (Mrs. Gravante or the Defendant)
states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of costs,

interest and attorneys fees. Primarily, however, it is an action seeking injunctive relief to
enjoin Defendant Mrs. Gravante from continuing to knowingly and/or recklessly make
statements that she knows to be false about Gravante, Jr. Defendant Mrs. Gravante is, has
repeatedly threatened to, and has explicitly admitted that she is, in fact, making such
statements to damage Gravante, Jr.s professional and personal reputation for unlawful
purposes.

2.

Plaintiff Nicholas Gravante, Jr., along with Christine Castellano and Richard

Gravante, are the only children of Defendant Mrs. Gravante and their deceased father,
Nicholas Gravante, Sr. (Gravante, Sr.). Although Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New
York, Gravante, Jr. maintains a second residence in Naples, Florida, where he and his wife
and children spend time throughout the year. The Florida residence of Plaintiff Gravante, Jr.
is in the residential community in Naples, Florida known as Pelican Bay. Gravante, Jr.
resides in a subdivision of Pelican Bay known as Bay Colony.
3.

Defendant Mrs. Gravante is the mother of Plaintiff and was married to his

deceased father. She is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. Defendant Mrs.
Gravante also resides in the residential community in Naples, Florida known as Pelican Bay.
4.

Venue for this action is properly in Collier County, Florida because Mrs.

Gravante is a resident of Collier County, Florida, a substantial part of the events giving rise
to Plaintiffs claims were initiated by Mrs. Gravante in Collier County, and most of the other
events at issue in this action transpired in Collier County. The damage to Gravante, Jr.s
professional and personal reputation at issue in this case is primarily being caused to him by
certain demonstrably false statements Mrs. Gravante is making about Plaintiff from Collier
County. In addition, many of those false statements are being made to individuals who
reside in Collier County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
5.

In late November 2014, Mrs. Gravantes husband (Plaintiffs father),

Gravante, Sr., was hospitalized in New York City. As his condition steadily deteriorated,
Defendant Mrs. Gravante repeatedly stated to Plaintiff, to her other children, to her

grandchildren, to many of her Florida neighbors, and to many others that, if Gravante, Sr.
were to pass away, she did not want to inherit, occupy or own any portion of, nor did she
want to pay any of the bills relating to maintenance of, a lakefront property located at 77
Lake Drive North, Candlewood Isle, Connecticut (the Candlewood Isle Property) that was
owned by Gravante, Sr.

Gravante, Sr. had suffered the first two of three strokes that

ultimately led to his death at the Candlewood Isle Property and Mrs. Gravante also stated to
most of the same individuals that she had no desire ever to return to the property.
Accordingly, she requested that the property immediately be transferred directly and
immediately from Gravante Sr. to the Plaintiff and his siblings in equal shares so that it
would not pass through her estate. Gravante, Sr., who had long wanted to transfer the
Candlewood Isle Property to his three children, agreed.
6.

On December 10, 2014, Gravante, Sr. signed a power of attorney, prepared by

Richard Gravante at Defendant Mrs. Gravantes request, giving Defendant Mrs. Gravante the
power to, inter alia, engage in real estate transactions on behalf of her husband, Gravante, Sr.
The power of attorney signed by Gravante, Sr. was a Connecticut statutory short form power
of attorney. A copy of the power of attorney is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. The
power of attorney signed by Gravante, Sr. on or about December 10, 2014, was witnessed by
his grandson, Nicholas J. Gravante, Plaintiff Gravante, Jr., Richard Gravante and Richard
Gravantes wife, Mary Looby. Gravante, Sr.s signature was notarized by Mary Looby and
the power of attorney was recorded in Fairfield County, Connecticut on February 3, 2015.
7.

After receiving the power of attorney attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A,

on January 17, 2015, Defendant Mrs. Gravante then executed a deed at a local Chase Bank

branch office in Collier County, prepared by Richard Gravante at Defendant Mrs. Gravantes
request, transferring the Candlewood Isle Property from Gravante Sr. to Plaintiff and his
siblings in equal shares. A copy of the deed is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. After
directly explaining to Defendant Mrs. Gravante the nature of the document she was executing
before him that day, Steven Horn, an employee of the Chase Bank in Naples, notarized the
deed on January 17, 2015, in Collier County.
8.

Because Defendant Mrs. Gravante wanted assistance opening up a new bank

account at Chase and because Plaintiff Gravante, Jr. was in Naples, Florida with friends for
that holiday Martin Luther King weekend (as he had regularly been for that weekend for over
a decade), Plaintiff Gravante, Jr. drove Defendant Mrs. Gravante to the bank both on January
16, 2015, and again on January 17, 2015. On January, 17, 2015, Gravante, Jr. was a witness
to Steven Horns description to Mrs. Gravante of the nature of the deed she was executing.
As she had numerous times before, both to family and others, Defendant Mrs. Gravante also
manifested her understanding of the nature of the deed she was executing the very evening
before she signed it, on January 16, 2015, when she discussed it in the presence of several
others at a dinner to which Gravante, Jr. invited and took her at the Capital Grille in Naples,
Florida.
9.

After executing the deed before Mr. Horn at Chase Bank on January 17, 2015,

Defendant Mrs. Gravante thereafter directed and caused the deed attached to this Complaint
as Exhibit B to be recorded in Fairfield County, Connecticut on February 3, 2015. After the
deed was recorded on February 3, 2015, Gravante, Sr. died of natural causes in New York on

March 7, 2015. At the time he died, Gravante, Sr. was intestate. Defendant Mrs. Gravante
was in Florida at the time of his death.
10.

Subsequent to Gravante Sr.s death and in reliance on the transfer of the

Candlewood Isle Property by Defendant Mrs. Gravante, on behalf of Gravante, Sr., to

Plaintiff and his siblings on February 3, 2015, Plaintiff and his siblings entered into a
transaction among themselves whereby, after having the Candlewood Isle Property
appraised, Christine Castellano purchased from each of her brothers, Richard Gravante and
Plaintiff Gravante, Jr., their one-third interest in the property for one-third of the propertys
appraised value. As a result of that transaction, Castellano acquired 100% ownership of the
Candlewood Isle Property.
11.

During April and May of 2015, Castellano invested substantial sums

renovating, repairing, and redecorating the Candlewood Isle Property. Defendant Mrs.
Gravante was aware that Castellano was taking all of those actions and never objected to any
of them. During the renovations and redecorating of the property, in addition to requesting
and being given all of her clothes and other personal effects that were located at the property,
Mrs. Gravante also requested that she receive certain other items that she wanted to take for
her Florida residence.
12.

Every item Defendant Mrs. Gravante requested from the Candlewood Isle

Property at the time was given to her by Castellano. All of the other furniture in the house,
most of which was over 40 years old and worthless, was kept or disposed of, and some was
taken by Plaintiff Gravante Jr. who, with Defendant Mrs. Gravantes knowledge, hired a

moving company to have some of the furniture transported from Connecticut to a small,
empty weekend home in Pennsylvania he and his wife owned.
13.

Throughout the entire period in which these transactions, repairs, renovations,

actions and expenditures were taking place, Defendant Mrs. Gravante was fully aware that
they were taking place and affirmatively assisted Plaintiff and his siblings. Defendant Mrs.
Gravante was never asked to pay, nor did she pay, any expenses necessary to renovate, repair
and redecorate the Candlewood Isle Property. At no time prior to July 2015, and not until
after an argument she had with Castellano in June 2015 described below, did Defendant Mrs.
Gravante ever assert that she still had or desired an ownership interest in the Candlewood Isle
Property.
14.

In June 2015, Defendant Mrs. Gravante was invited by Castellano to spend the

Fourth of July weekend with her and her family at the Candlewood Isle Property. During a
telephone conversation with Castellano prior to and relating to that weekend, Defendant Mrs.
Gravante requested to stay in the master bedroom of the house during that weekend, which
by then was fully occupied by Castellano and her husband. After Castellano told Defendant
that it was inconvenient for her to stay in the master bedroom because Castellano was also
having other guests that weekend, an argument ensued and Defendant Mrs. Gravante refused
to go to the property for Fourth of July weekend or for the rest of the summer despite
numerous invitations from Castellano and her family.
15.

In retaliation for Castellanos asking Defendant to stay in a different bedroom

that weekend, for the first time during July 2015, Defendant Mrs. Gravante began asserting

to her family, including to her children and grandchildren, that she had changed her mind
and wanted her Candlewood Isle Property (which she had never owned) returned to her.
16.

At the time, in furtherance of her effort to have the Candlewood Isle Property

returned to her, Mrs. Gravante also began falsely asserting to numerous individuals,
particularly in Florida, that Plaintiff Gravante, Jr. had conspired and stolen the
Candlewood Isle Property from her and that she had been tricked by Plaintiff into
executing the deed by which, six months earlier, she had transferred the property to her three
children prior to Gravante, Sr.s death.
17.

In particular, with knowledge that such statements were false and defamatory

at the time she made them, Mrs. Gravante began telling numerous people, including her
grandchildren, family friends, business associates of her children and even a reporter, that she
had been tricked by Plaintiff Gravante, Jr. into signing the deed at her home immediately
after the dinner at the Capital Grille the night of January 16, 2015. In making these false
statements to others, Mrs. Gravante implied to others that she had been drinking that evening
(which she had been) and that her state of mind that evening was such that she was incapable
of understanding the document she falsely told everyone that she had executed that night.
18.

Mrs. Gravante knowingly made those false statements to numerous others

with the intention of seeking to harm Gravante, Jr.s reputation by trying to convince people
that he had taken advantage of his mother. She has admitted on numerous occasions that that
was the motivation for her making the false statements. In fact, as she knew full well, and as
the deed conclusively reflects on its face, Mrs. Gravante executed the deed on January 17,
2015, the day after the Capital Grille dinner and after the bank had opened that day.

Moreover, she executed the deed in the presence of Mr. Horn, who explained the nature of
the two-page document to her and notarized her signature on it in Gravante, Jr.s presence.
19.

At the time, angry with her children, Defendant Mrs. Gravante also began an

orchestrated campaign of verbally telling people that her children were stealing her money
and had left her destitute with insufficient funds to pay bills even for basic necessities. Those
statements were also demonstrably false, as Mrs. Gravante had substantial assets, including
in excess of $2.5 million in liquid assets.
20.

Although she was not speaking with Plaintiff at the time, Plaintiff asked his

wife Jacqueline to take his three young sons to visit Defendant Mrs. Gravante, their
grandmother, in September 2015. During that visit, Defendant Mrs. Gravante falsely told his
twin then-13 year old boys and his then 10-year old son that their father, Plaintiff Gravante,
Jr., had stolen her Candlewood Isle Property and left her without any money to pay bills.
21.

In September 2015, from her home in Florida, Defendant Mrs. Gravante

began an orchestrated campaign to tarnish Gravante, Jrs reputation with, among others, his
friends and neighbors in his Florida community by going through her phone book and
making telephone calls--during which she made false and defamatory statements concerning
Gravante, Jr.--to many of her neighbors, his friends and others in his Florida community.
22.

Many of the individuals Defendant Mrs. Gravante called and spoke to knew

Gravante, Jr. personally; others knew of him only by reputation; and still others did not know
him at all. During those conversations, Defendant Mrs. Gravante falsely told Gravante, Jrs
neighbors and others in his community, among other things, that Gravante, Jr. had stolen
the Candlewood Isle Property from her, tricked her into signing certain legal papers after a

dinner at the Capital Grille, and had, with his siblings, left her destitute, all of which
statements were false and defamatory.
23.

Among numerous other Florida individuals to whom Defendant made the

false and defamatory statements concerning Gravante, Jr. in an attempt to tarnish his
reputation in his Florida community were Jan Farrell, Ed Farrell, Marcia Kelly and Peter
Kelly, all of whom either had previously met or were friends with Gravante, Jr. At trial in
this action, these and many other Florida individuals with whom Defendant Mrs. Gravante
had such conversations and to whom Mrs. Gravante made such false statements will be
called as witnesses against her.
24.

For example, Gravante, Jr. had known Ed Farrell for almost a decade prior to

the events at issue. The two had played tennis together in Florida on many occasions,
socialized and were both members of the Bay Colony Beach Club during that period. During
the first approximately seven years that Mr. Gravante resided in the Bay Colony community,
he resided is a building known as the Salerno. Approximately three years ago, he moved into
a nearby building known as the Brighton, where Mr. and Mrs. Farrell resided. As a result,
Gravante, Jr. was introduced by Mr. Farrell to many other residents of the building.
25.

Gravante, Jr. had originally introduced Mr. Farrell to Defendant Mrs.

Gravante by inviting her to dinner with them. Over the years, Gravante, Jr. invited defendant
Mrs. Gravante to dinner with him and Mr. Farrell on several occasions, both when Gravante,
Jr. was dining in Naples with his family and when dining in Naples with friends. Knowing
that Gravante, Jr. and Farrell shared many relationships both in their building and in their
Bay Colony community, in or about September 2015, Defendant Gravante telephoned the

Farrells residence in the Brighton and tried to contact Mr. Farrell. Although he was not
home at the time, Defendant Gravante reached and spoke to his wife, Jan Farrell, a woman
she had never met. During that conversation, Defendant Gravante told Mrs. Farrell, among
other things, that Gravante, Jr. had stolen her Connecticut house, tricked her into signing a
deed transferring the property at her home after a dinner, and, with his siblings, had stolen
other property from her and left her destitute. Defendant Mrs. Gravante made that telephone
call solely because she wanted Mr. Farrell and other residents of the building where
Gravante, Jr. lived and other of his neighbors in the Bay Colony community to know that
Gravante, Jr. was a dishonest person who had stolen from and tricked his own mother. Mrs.
Gravante has no personal or any other kind of relationship with the Farrells and her sole
reason for making that call was to defame him and try to damage his reputation in his
community by lying about him.
26.

As another of many examples, again while in Florida, Defendant Gravante

made the same false and defamatory statements to Peter and Marcia Kelly, Florida residents
who live in the same Pelican Bay community with Gravante Jr. Peter and Marcia Kelly had
socialized with Gravante, Sr. and defendant Mrs. Gravante for many years. Gravante Sr. had
introduced Gravante, Jr. to Mr. and Mrs. Kelly by inviting them to his Florida home with
Gravante, Jr. and his wife. Defendant Mrs. Gravante made the same false and defamatory
statements to the Kellys solely for the purpose of trying to tarnish Gravante, Jr.s reputation
in his Naples community.
27.

Defendant Mrs. Gravante has gone out of her way to make the same false and

defamatory statements regarding Gravante, Jr. to numerous other individuals in his Naples

10

community, solely for the purpose of trying to damage Gravante, Jr.s reputation. Defendant
Mrs. Gravante has, on several occasions, told Gravante, Jr. that she has successfully tarnished
Gravante, Jr.s reputation in his Florida community, on one occasion telling him that one of
his neighbors said she wants to spit in your face the next time she sees Gravante, Jr.
28.

From Florida, Defendant Mrs. Gravante has also telephoned Gravante, Jr.s

nieces, nephews and other family members, leaving some voicemail messages which repeat
the same false and defamatory statements concerning Gravante, Jr. and, specifically, the
same false statements about concerning the time, place and circumstances relating to the
manner in which she executed the deed transferring the Candlewood Isle Property.
29.

From Florida, she has also telephoned his law firm, attempted to speak with at

least two of his law partners, and actually spoken with at least one of his firms long-term
employees, repeating the same false and defamatory statements about Gravante, Jr.,
including but not limited to the fact that Gravante, Jr. had stolen the Candlewood Isle
Property from her by tricking her into signing the deed transferring the property at her home
immediately after a dinner at the Capital Grille. All of these false and defamatory statements
have been made with the sole purpose of damaging Gravante Jr.s personal and professional
reputation.
30.

From Florida, defendant Mrs. Gravante has also made the same false and

defamatory statements to many of Gravante, Jr.s business associates, solely in an effort to

further damage his reputation in the business community.
31.

Most recently, Defendant Mrs. Gravante knowingly made the same false and

defamatory statements from her Florida home to a reporter, who subsequently wrote and

11

published an internet story containing the false and defamatory statements that Mrs. Gravante
had made to him about Gravante, Jr. In the recently published internet article, Defendant
Mrs. Gravante was quoted as stating: My son Nicholas came to visit me..He took me to
the Capital Grille. We had a nice dinner. We went over to my house.. He saidSign his
[Gravante SRs] name and youre the agent. I said okay and that was that.I didnt know I
was signing away the house in Connecticut. ..I didnt see the front sheet of what I was
signing. They tricked me into signing it away. Defendant Mrs. Gravante knowingly made
and caused those false and defamatory statements to be published knowing they were false
and without a credible or reliable source, nor evidence, to support such a libelous accusation.
32.

All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been

performed, excused or waived.

COUNT I TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
33.

This is an action for tortious interference with business relationships.

34.

Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-32 as if fully

set forth herein.

35.

Plaintiff is a partner at an Am Law 200 Firm, acting as a member of the firms

six person Executive Committee, the Administrative Partner of the firms New York City
office, and as the firms General Counsel.

As such, Plaintiff enjoys an advantageous

business relationship with his law firm and business associates. Defendant was and is aware
of Plaintiffs employment relationship with his firm and successful legal career.
36.

Defendant intentionally and wrongfully interfered with such relationships,

without legal justification, by calling Plaintiffs employer and business associates and falsely

12

stating that Plaintiff had stolen her house, tricked her into signing a deed, and, with his
siblings, left her destitute.
37.

As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful interference, Plaintiff has

been damaged. Such damages include direct damages and special, indirect and consequential
damages in the form of lost profits, loss of goodwill, and loss of business reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment
for damages to be proven at trial against Defendant, costs, interest and such other just and
further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II DEFAMATION
38.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 32, supra, as if fully set forth herein.

39.

This is an action for defamation of Plaintiff against Defendant and for

damages in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of interest, fees and costs.

40.

Defendant made false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff to

numerous third parties, including to his friends, law firm, business associates, neighbors in
his Florida community, children, relatives, at least one reporter, and others, making
references that Plaintiff has committed deceitful acts relating to, among other things, the
circumstances relating to her execution of the deed transferring the Candlewood Isle
Property. Primary examples of Defendants false and defamatory statements concerning
Gravante, Jr. are reflected in the published internet article quoted above.
41.

Defendant made the statements solely with the intention for others to treat

Plaintiff with disdain, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or otherwise cause harm to Plaintiff.

13

42.

Defendant made the statements with knowledge of their falsity, and without

reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements.

43.

Defendant made these statements orally to third-parties.

44.

At the time Defendant made the false and defamatory statements of and

concerning Plaintiff, Defendant knew or should have known that the statements regarding
Plaintiff were false. Defendant made the false and defamatory statements with actual malice,
that is, with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of said statements.
45.

Defendant, having made the same and similar false statements repeatedly to

numerous third parties, has caused injury to Plaintiff by impugning his business, professional
and personal reputations.
46.

Defendant had no obligation to make the defamatory statements to any of the

aforementioned third-parties.
47.

Even if Defendant had an obligation to make those statements to a third-party,

Defendant had actual malice in publication.

48.

As a result of the publication, Plaintiff has been and will continue to be

damaged, including the loss of future employment and business opportunities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in favor of Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, costs, interest and such
other just and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III- TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
49.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 48, supra, as if fully set forth herein.

14

50.

The continuing, ongoing interference to Plaintiffs business relationships by

Defendant is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff. The telephone call made by Defendant
Mrs. Gravante to Plaintiff Gravante, Jr.s law firm was, in fact, made in the last several
weeks, notwithstanding that Defendant Mrs. Gravante had been told on numerous occasions
prior to that that her statements relating to Gravante, Jr. were false, defamatory and
actionable. However, she has refused to cease making such false and defamatory statements.
51.

Based on the ongoing, actual and significant interference with Plaintiffs

business relationships, Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.

52.

As a consequence of Defendants actions, interference of Plaintiffs business

relationships has and will continue to occur without judicial intervention.

53.

Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law other than an injunction to

prohibit Defendant from furthering her tortious interference with Plaintiffs business
relationships.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a
temporary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further interfering with
Plaintiffs business relationships by communicating with Plaintiffs employer and business
associates regarding the false and defamatory statements and any such other relief as may be
just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2016,

/s/ Mayanne Downs

Mayanne Downs
Florida Bar No. 754900
Email: mayanne.downs@gray-robinson.com
Secondary Email:

15

kathy.savage@gray-robinson.com
Jason A. Zimmerman
Florida Bar No. 104392
Email: jason.zimmerman@gray-robinson.com
Secondary Email:
darlene.dallas@gray-robinson.com
G. Brock Magruder
Florida Bar No. 112614
Email: brock.magruder@gray-robinson.com
Secondary Email:
shawna.tucker@gray-robinson.com
GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street, Suite 1400
Post Office Box 3068
Orlando, Florida 32802-3068
(407) 843-8880 Telephone
(407) 244-5690 Facsimile
Attorneys for Plaintiff

16

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B