‘STATE OF NEW YORK. SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE, ROGER LOK, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of ODETTE MARIE LOK, Deceased, Plaintiff, against ‘TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT 1300 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617 CHAD M. RAHN 1300 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617 COUNTY OF MONROE 39 West Main Street Rochester, New York 14614, Defendants. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: SUMMONS Index No. itso - of L600 You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the plaintiff's attorney an answer to, the complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exchisive of _. the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summo personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In’ case of your failure to efiower, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. The basis of venue designed is the residence of the plaintiff which is 35 Bay Bluff, Rochester, New York 14622. DATED: — November 2, 2007 Sheldon WV. Boyce BRENNA, BRENNA & BOYCE, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 31 East Main Street Suite 2000 Rochester, New York 14614 (685) 454-2000STATE OF NEW YORK. SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE Eee sess sereeceeceeeteseseeseeeeceeeece eee ROGER LOK, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of ODETTE MARIE LOK, Deceased, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT against Index No. i450 -off TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, CHAD M. RAHN, and COUNTY OF MONROE, Defendants. Plaintiff, for his Complaint, alleges: 1. Upon information and belief, Defendant Town of Irondequoit ("the Town") js a municipal corporation with offices located at 1300 Titus Avemue, Rochester, New York 14617. 2. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Chad A. Rahn ("Rahn") was a resident of the County of Monroe. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant County of Monroe ("the County") js a municipal corporation with offices located at 39 West Main Street, Rochester, New York 14614. 4. Plaintiff Roger Lok ("Roger") and Odette Marie Lok ("Odette") were married on October 14, 2000, and resided together as husband and wife until the sudden and untimely death of Odette on November 4, 2006, 5, Atal] times relevant, Roger was duly appointed as Executor of the Estate of Odette and continues to act as such,6. Atall times relevant, the police officers referred to in this Complaint were ‘employees of the Town acting in the furtherance of their duties as such. 7. On November 3, 2006, at the intersection of Culver Road and Heberle Road in the Town of Irondequoit, County of Monroe, Defendant Rahn recklessly operated a motor vehicle which struck Odette, causing her death. 8. The motor vehicle being operated by Defendant Rahn was owned by the ‘Town and was being operated with its consent. 9, Defendant Rahn was operating the vehicle in the course of his employment with the Town as a police officer. 10, Odette had been visiting with her daughter, Monica Lauzier ("Monica"), before the accident, and was walking to her home, where Roger was waiting for her. 11. When Odette did not arrive home, Roger drove in his car to find her. He found the street blocked by police officers of the Town. 12. Roger asked to go through the road block to find his wife, but the Town's officers refused 13, Roger asked the officers several times whether his wife was in an accident, but they refused to give him any information. 14. The officers detained Roger at the roadblock without any legal justification, and refused to allow him to go home. 15, Despite Roger's repeated requests, the officers contimued for several hours to refuse to provide him any information about the accident, and continued their unlawful detention of him at the roadblock, including interrogating Roger in a police car.16. During this time period, Roger asked to see Monica, but the officers told hhim he could not see her because they were questioning her. 17. After several hours, a police officer finally took Roger to Monice's apartment building. The police still would not let Roger see Monica, and held him in @ neighbor's apartment until they completed their interrogation of Monica. 18. The police refused to tell either Roger or Monica that Odette had died until they completed their interrogation of Monica. 19. The highways in the immediate vicinity of the above intersection were owned, designed, and maintained by the County. 20. A Notice of Claim was served on Defendants on January 30, 2007. 21. A heating pursuant to provisions of the General Municipal Law was held on May 22, 2007. 22, More than thirty days have elapsed since the Notice of Claim was served, and Defendants have failed to pay or adjust this claim. 23, The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 24, The liability limits set forth in CPLR Article 16 do not apply to this action. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 25, Asaresult of Defendants’ negligence, Odette suffered conscious pain and suffering, mental and emotional shock and anguish before her death. 26, As a result of the above, Odette sustained damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 27. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Odette suffered serious injuries causing her death. 28. Odette's distributes sustained pecuniary damages as a result of her wrongful death, ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN 29. The conduct of the Town's police officers constituted an unlawful arrest ‘and detainment of Roger, causing him severe mental and emotional distress and anguish, all to his damage in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action. 30. The actions of the Town's police officers were so wanton, willful and malicious as to justify an award for punitive damages. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN 31. _ In performing their duties as employees of the Town, the police officers who detained Roger negligently inflicted emotional harm on him, causing him extreme ‘emotional, psychological, and mental distress. 32. The actions of the Town's police officers were so wanton, willful end ‘malicious as to justify an award for punitive damages 33, By reason of the above, Roger suffered damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action, FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN 34, tall times relevant, the Town police officers were acting under color of state law.35. The conduct of the officers of Defendant Town deprived Roger of his constitutional rights reserved to him under the Constitution of the United States of ‘America and of New York State, giving rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. §1981, 1983, and 1988. 36. Plaintiff is entitled to and makes claim for recovery of attorney's fees incurred pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §1988. 37. The actions of the Town's police officers were so wanton, willful and malicious as to justify an award for punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN 38, Based upon the ‘above, Roger has a claim against the Town for Constitutional Tort under the lew of the State of New York, together with punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment egainst the Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, costs, disbursements and attomeys! fees. DATED: — November 2, 2007 Sheldon Wy'BOyee BRENNA, BRENNA & BOYCE, PLLC Attorneys for the Plaintiff 31 Bast Main Street Suite 2000 Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 454-2000VOLUNTARY STATEMENT Date: November 4, 2006 Location: Irondequoit PD, 1300 Titus Avenue L the undersigned Jeremiah Cole Epping am 29 years of age, having been born on April 1", 1977 now reside at 1190 Park Avenue, Apt #304 in Rochester, NY 14610 do hereby give this statement of my own free will: ‘On November 3", 2006 at about 11:20 p.m. I had just left a friends home on Sommershire Rd in the Town of Irondequoit, NY and was headed home. I was by myself and was driving my 2003 Pontiac Aztek, color silver. To get home, I drove on Titus Avenue to Culver Rd and then turned south onto Culver. As I passed by the East Ridge Rd intersection I noticed a marked police car stopped on the east side of Culver Rd facing north. The red roof lights were on but I can’t recall if he had a car stopped there or not. I continued south on Culver Rd and was in the left most of the two southbound lanes when just before I got to the Rt 104 overpass a marked police car, which was also southbound on Culver Ra, passed me on the right. I never saw the police car coming up from behind me and only noticed it as he passed me. I can’t recall if he had any red lights, head lights, or tail lights on as he passed me and thought he must have been going on some type of call because of the speed he was going when he went by me. If the car’s siren had been on I would have recalled that, Lhave been driving since I was 18 years old and have driven a lot in the years since I got my license. Based upon my experiences driving I would estimate that he was going at about 50 to 60 miles per hour when he ‘went by me. I don’t remember there being anyone else on the road in the area at that time and don’t think the speed he was going was unsafe for the conditions. As I passed underneath Rt 104 I was looking down the road at the area out'in front of the police car, which was now about 400 to 450 feet in front of me still going at about the same speed it had been when it went past me. At this point I saw something dark that was on the rright side of the road either jump or get thrown out in front of him and it seemed to instantly disappear at this location, just a short distance south of Taylor’s gas station. As II got to that location where I had saw that take place I first noticed a bunch of debris glittering in the ad and recall then taking note that the red roof lights on the police car were om and it was stopped on the right side of the road. I don’t recall hearing the brakes on the police car squeal but I also did have my car radio on at the time so it’s possible they did but I just didn’t hear them. As I saw all of this happening I began to realize that the police car must have just struck something, As I passed by the debris I saw that it ‘was strewn across the road and remember seeing something larger on the left side of the road by the curb but couldn't tell what it was. As I passed by the police car I couldn’t see anyone standing around and saw that the car had some damage to the left front corner area of the ear but don’t know if it had just happened or if it was pre-existing. I did not stop because I didn’t know what was going on and didn’t want to get in the ‘way of something in case he was chasing someone. I continued south on Culver Rd and don’t recall seeing any other vehicles until I was near Waring Road. Yetifcation of this instrument is made pursuant to Sec. 100304) ofthe NYS Cri Law, and I am aware that knowingly making a false written statement is a Class A er affob Sietupt Porn vag Sena Date ‘Wines DateRochester Police Department Special Accident Investigation Unit Criminal Investigation Division Osticer Jon Northrup / Reconstructionst ‘Tel. ($85) 4281327 Novernber 19, 2007 Supplemental Reconstruction Report ‘The purpose of this report is to outline additional information and work I have performed in relation to an accident that occured in the 2500 block of Culver Rd. on 11/04/06 (IPD CR: 06-057467). Background Atthe time of the crash Twas aware ofthe fact that there was likely electronic data stored in both the Restraint Control Module (RCM) and the Powertrain Control Moctle (PCM) in the vehicle involved in the incident. Since then, the Bosch Corporation, which has acquired the Vertonies/EATS Group, has released software for their Crash Data Retrieval System (CDR.) The CDR allows users to access the data in 2005 to 2007 Ford Crowa Victorias. In addition to the data in the RCM there might also be data that is locked within the PCM wae: restraint device is deployed in «crash. The Bosch hardware and software to image this daa safely, is currently in Beta Testing and will soon be released. On October 26, 2007 the PCM was downloaded by Constable Brad Muir ofthe Ontario Provincial Police, who is one ofthe beta testers of this technology. (On November 5, 2007 I downloaded the RCM via the Diagnostic Link Connector in the vebicle involved in this crash at the IPD. Results ‘The download from the Restraint Control Module reported 2 driver airbag deployment, along with a side sensor deployment and a driver column device deployment. The recovered data also reported that the river's seatbeit pretension device was also deployed, These events were recorded on key cycle 4515. All the devices deployed were fired at 12.8 milliseconds (ms) after Algoritim Enable (AB). This is the point ‘where the RCM “wakes up” as it senses a developing collision. In this crash only the first stage of the driver's airbag deployed during the actual crash; the second stage was “disposed” of 163.2 ms after AB. ‘The downloaded RCM data reports the Driver's Belt Switch Status as buckled. It should also be noted that the driver’s column device is « pyrotechnic pin that is activated in a crash where lower severity is predicted as the crash pulse develops. The fring of this device lessens the resistance of curl straps inside the steering oolurnn which regulates how quickly the steering wheel end column compress during a crash. ‘The file also indicates that only one deployment fle was recorded in the RCM. ‘The data imaged from the Powertrain Control module was locked when the PCM received a Restraint Deployment Signal from the RCM. The data recorded in the PCM is recorded in a 25 second circular buifer, which records 16 data points in 0.2 secoad intervals. When the PCM receives the RDS Flag it locks the existing data to provide roughly 20 seconds pre-crash and five seconds post-crash across these data points.TThe data from this PCM download indicates thatthe vehicle was traveling just under 75 miles per hour when it struck the pedestrian. By performing time distance calculations with the PCM dzta, [have developed positional data for the Vehicle for 1973 feet and 253 feet before and after impact, respectively At these two poins the vehicle was traveling at 52 and 0.9 miles per hour, respectively. The fastest that the vehicle was traveling in the PCM data was 78.2 miles per hour. This speed occurred between 250 feet, and 273 feet; 2.2 and 2.4 seconds before impact. ‘The data from the PCM also indicates that the Brake Light Switch was on 0.2 seconds before impact and off at the moment of impact. The Brake Light Switch shows on again 0.4 seconds after impact and femains on to the ending point of the recorded data 5 seconds post impact. The Cruise Control Deactivate ‘Switch indicates ‘on’ or the samme post impact times as the Brake Light Switch. The data also reports that the:ABS was active from I second after impact to 3.6 seconds post impact. Brake Switch, Cruise Control Deactivate Switch and ABS data indicate thatthe driver's foot pressed on the brake pedal enough to activate the brake lights 0.2 seconds before impact, The driver then pressed the brake pedal further from. (0.4 seconds post impact until the PCM data ends. This data shows that the vehicle was braking to ‘maximum effect from 1 second to 3.6 seconds post impact. : One must keep in mind that the technology of recovering and analyzing this type of data is new and. evolving rapidly. It should also be kept in mind that all the speed values are calculated by the PCM that is the source ofthe electronic signal that controls the speed display on the vehicles instrument pane! and these values should be considered to be within +/-2 miles per hour of the vehicles actual ground speed. It is my opinion, (based on my current level of training and experience) that the data contained in the PCM and RCM downloads from this vehicle is accurate and reliable to a reasonable degree of sieatific certainty and consistent with the circumstances of this collision. Jon Northnip