INDEX NO.

163085/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/29/2015 06:07 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2015

SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
LAURA KATZ and JUDITH KATz,
Plaintiffs,

Plaintiff designates

NEW YORK
County as the place of trial

BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT, LJ 202, LLC,

THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP, BOCCA DI BACCO,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO and TAREK ALAM.
The basis of venue is

Plaintiff's Residence

SUMMONS
Defendants.
Plaintiff resides

New York County, New York

BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT, LJ 202, LLC, THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP,

BOCCA DI BACC0,THOMAS VITO BIFULCO and TAREK ALAM.

TO:

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, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20
days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within
30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered
to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or
answer, judgement will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in
the complaint .,
Dated: NEW YORK, NEW YORK
December 18, 2015

STEVEN L. SALZMAN, P.C.

Defendant's Address:

Attorney for Plaintiff(s)

SEE ANNEXED LIST

250 West 57th Street-Suite 1619

New York, New York 10107
(212) 425-7775

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

............................................................................

LAURA KATZ and JUDITH KATZ,

Plaintiffs,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Index Number:

BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT, LJ 202, LLC,

THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP, BOCCA DI BACCO,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO and TAREK ALAM.
Defendants.

..............................................................................

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Steven L. Salzman, P.C., complaining of the defendants above
named, upon information and belief and based upon information currently available to counsel,
respectfully allege as follows:
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, LAURA KATZ

1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, this plaintiff was and still is a resident of the State
of New York, County of New York.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, LJ 202, LLC was and still is a
domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New
York.

3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202, LLC was authorized to
transact business in the State of New York.

4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant LJ 202, LLC, was actually
transacting business within the State of New York.
5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202, LLC was the owner of a
certain restaurant premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located at 1496 Second
Avenue, in the City, County and State of New York.

6. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202,
LLC operated the aforesaid restaurant.

7. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202,
LLC maintained the aforesaid restaurant.

8. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202,
LLC controlled the aforesaid restaurant.

9. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ 202,
LLC was in possession of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
10. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, LJ
202, LLC was the lessee of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT
was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of New York.
12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT
was authorized to transact business in the State of New York.
13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT
was actually transacting business within the State of New York.

14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT
was the owner of a certain restaurant premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located
at 1496 Second Avenue, in the City, County and State of New York.
15. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT operated the aforesaid restaurant.
16. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT maintained the aforesaid restaurant.
17. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT controlled the aforesaid restaurant.
18. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT was in possession of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
19. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT was the lessee of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP &a THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
2 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP &a THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was authorized to transact business in the State of New York.
22. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant THE BOCCA GROUP alkla THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was actually transacting business within the State ofNew York.
23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP &a THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was the owner of a certain restaurant premises known as

BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located at 1496 Second Avenue, in the City, County and State of
New York.
24. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE
BOCCA GROUP aMa THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP operated the aforesaid restaurant.
25. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE
BOCCA GROUP alWa THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP maintained the aforesaid restaurant.
26. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE
BOCCA GROUP alWa THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP controlled the aforesaidrestaurant.
27. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE
BOCCA GROUP &a THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was in possession of the aforesaid
restaurant premises.
28. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THE
BOCCA GROUP a/Wa THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP was the lessee of the aforesaid
restaurant premises.
29. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO was and still
is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State
of New York.
30. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO was a "Trade
Name" utilized by the aforementioned defendants in the operation of the aforementionedrestaurant.
3 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO was
authorized to transact business in the State of New York.
32. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant BOCCA DI BACCO was actually

transacting business within the State of New York.

33. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO was the
owner of a certain restaurant premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located at 1496
Second Avenue, in the City, County and State of New York.
34. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA DI BACCO operated the aforesaid restaurant.
35. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA DI BACCO maintained the aforesaid restaurant.
36. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA DI BACCO controlled the aforesaid restaurant.
37. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA DI BACCO was in possession of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
38. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
BOCCA DI BACCO was the lessee of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
39. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a corporate officer of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
40. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a director of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
41. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a partner of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
42. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a principal shareholder of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.

43. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was an owner of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
44. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a corporate officer of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
45. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a director of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
46. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a partner of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
47. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a principal shareholder of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
48. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was an owner of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
49. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a corporate officer of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP dk/a
THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.
50. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a director of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP dk/a THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.
5 1. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a partner of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP a/kla THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.
52. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,

THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was a principal shareholder of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP
a/Wa THE BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.
53. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was an owner of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP alk/a THE
BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.
54. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was
authorized to transact business in the State of New York.
55. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was
actually transacting business within the State of New York.
56. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was
the owner of a certain restaurant premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located at 1496
Second Avenue, in the City, County and State of New York.
57. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO operated the aforesaid restaurant.
58. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO maintained the aforesaid restaurant.
59. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO controlled the aforesaid restaurant.
60. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was in possession of the aforesaid restaurant premises.

61. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
THOMAS VITO BIFULCO was the lessee of the aforesaid restaurant premises.

62. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a corporate officer of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
63. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a director of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
64. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a partner of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
65. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a principal shareholder of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
66. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was an owner of the defendant, LJ 202, LLC.
67. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a corporate officer of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
68. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a director of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.

69. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a partner of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
70. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a principal shareholder of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
71. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was an owner of the defendant, BOCCA DI BACCO.
72. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a corporate officer of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP a/k/a THE

BOCCA RESTAURANT GROUP.

73. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a director of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP dk/a THE BOCCA
RESTAURANT GROUP.
74. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a partner of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP a k l a THE BOCCA
RESTAURANT GROUP.
75. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was a principal shareholder of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP dk/a THE
BOCCA RESTAURAhTT GROUP.
76. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was an owner of the defendant, THE BOCCA GROUP a k / a THE BOCCA
RESTAURANT GROUP.
77. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, TAREK ALAM was authorized
to transact business in the State of New York.
78. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant TAREK ALAM was actually
transacting business within the State of New York.

79. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, TAREK ALAM was the owner
of a certain restaurant premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT located at 1496 Second
Avenue, in the City, County and State of New York.
80. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM operated the aforesaid restaurant.

81. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAFEK ALAM maintained the aforesaid restaurant.
82. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM controlled the aforesaid restaurant.
83. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAFEK ALAM was in possession of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
84. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant,
TAREK ALAM was the lessee of the aforesaid restaurant premises.
85. That on or about November 5, 2013 at approximately 7:45 p.m. this plaintiff was
l a f i l l y and legally at the aforementioned premises known as BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT
located at 1496 Second Avenue in the City, County and State of New York and owned and operated
by the defendants herein as aforesaid, as a dinner patron there.
86. That on the aforesaid date, at the aforementioned location, this plaintiff was caused to
sustain serious and severe personal injuries when she was dowsed in flames, lit on fire, engulfed in
flames and severely burned by the defendant's,their agents, servants, independent contractors and/or
employees who were in the process of flambeeing a dish in the crowded dining room of the BOCCA
EAST RESTAURANT where this plaintiff was a patron.
87. That the said occurrence and serious and severe injuries sustained by this plaintiff were
occasioned solely and wholly through and by reason of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence
of the defendants, their agents, servants, independent contractors andlor employees in causing and
permitting food to be flambeed in a crowded public dining room close to restaurant patrons and in
a negligent manner; in failing to have the fire from the dishes they were flambeeing under reasonable

and proper control; in carelessly and negligently causing and permitting cooking, with open flame
to occur in a crowded restaurant dining room in violation of the statutes and ordinances in such cases
made and provided and then and there in effect; in causing and permitting open flame cooking to
occur in a public dining room in close proximity to the patrons eating at the said restaurant and food
to be flambeed in a dangerous manner without care or caution, or concern for patrons who were
lawfilly and legally upon said premises; in suffering, allowing, causing and permitting the said fire
from the open flame cooking to strike and collide with the head, neck, face, lips, hand, hair and ears
of the plaintiff herein; in negligently failing to exercise due care and caution in cooking with an open
flame and flambeeing food in a crowded restaurant dining room in close proximity to the patrons
dining therein; in failing to look and see the plaintiff who was there to be seen; and the defendants,
their agents, servants and/or employees were otherwise careless and negligent in failing to take
proper and suitable precautions for this plaintiffs safety. In addition to the forgoing, the plaintiff
herein will rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
88. That the serious and severe injuries sustained by this plaintiff were occasioned without
any negligence or want of care on the part of this plaintiff in any manner contributing thereto.
89. The provisions of CPLR Article 16 are not applicable inasmuch as one or more
exceptions, specifically CPLR section 1602 (6) inter alia, apply herein.
90. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, their agents, servants, independent
contractors and/or employees as aforesaid, this plaintiff was rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled,
she has suffered shock, fright and emotional distress and her injuries, upon information and belief,
are of a permanent nature; that by reason thereof, she has been prevented from following her usual
vocation and has been obliged to incur expenses and obligations for medical care, attention and

treatment, and she is informed and she verily believes that she will in the future be obliged to incur
further expenses and obligations for medication, medical care, attention and treatment, all to her
damage in a sum greater than the jurisdictional limit of all Lower Courts which would otherwise
have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, LAURA KATZ

9 1. This plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation of this Verified
Complaint marked " 1" through "90" inclusive, with the same force and effect as though more fully
set forth at length herein.

92. At all times relevant the defendants had negligently hired their agents, servants,
independent contractors andor employees who participated in and or caused the acts alleged herein
andor that they had knowledge andor should have known that said agents andor employees were
not qualified, competent, licensed andor properly trained to engage in the open flame cooking and/or
flambeeing of dishes on a crowded restaurant dining room floor in close proximity to patrons dining
there such as occurred in this accident as aforesaid; andor the defendants negligently refrained fi-om
dismissing its servants, agents, independent contractors andlor employees when defendant knew or
should have known that said employees had propensities to do wrongful acts and were not qualified,
competent, licensed and/or properly trained to engage in the open flame cooking andlor flambeeing
of dishes on a crowded restaurant dining room floor in close proximity to patrons dining there such
as occurred in this accident as aforesaid.

93. Defendants were negligent in failing and omitting to properly train their agents, servants,
independent contractors and/or employees in procedures to be used in the open flame cooking andor

flarnbeeing of dishes on a crowded restaurant dining room floor in close proximity to patrons dining
there such as occurred in this accident; defendants were negligent in failing and omitting to
promulgate proper rules and regulation and/or procedures and allowing their agents, servants,
independent contractors andlor employees to engage in the open flame cooking and/or flambeeing
of dishes of food on a crowded restaurant dining room floor in close proximity to patrons dining
there such as occurred in this accident; the defendants were further negligent in failing to see to it
that proper procedures were employed by their agents, servants, independent contractors and/or
employees so as to avoid incidents like the one complained of herein and in failing to properly
supervise their said agents, servants and/or employees.
94. The said occurrence and serious and severe injuries were caused, concomitantly by the
negligence of the defendant as aforesaid, its agents, servants, independent contractors and/or
employees, with no negligence on the part of plaintiff in any manner contributing thereto, all to her
damage in a sum greater than the jurisdictional limit of all Lower Courts which would otherwise
have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, JUDITH KATZ

95. This plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation of this Verified
Complaint marked " 1" through "94" inclusive, with the same force and effect as though more fully
set forth at length herein.
95. That on or about November 5, 2013 at approximately 7:45 p.m. this plaintiff was
lawfully and legally dining at the aforementioned premises known as BOCCA EAST
RESTAURANT located at 1496 Second Avenue in the City, County and State of New York and

owned and operated by the defendants herein as aforesaid, in the company of her daughter, Plaintiff,
Laura Katz.
96. That on the aforesaid date, at the aforementioned location, this plaintiff was caused to
sustain serious and severe personal injuries when her daughter, Laura Katz was dowsed in flames,
lit on fire, engulfed in flames and severely burned by the defendant's, their agents, servants,
independent contractors and/or employees who were in the process of flambeeing a dish in the
crowded dining room of the BOCCA EAST RESTAURANT where this plaintiff was a patron.

97. That as a result thereof, this plaintiff Judith Katz, was caused to sustain serious and
severe personal injuries including emotional damages when, while in the zone of danger, she
witnessed her daughter, Laura Katz, with whom she was dining, being seriously and severely injured
dowsed in flames, lit on fire, engulfed in flames and severely burned by the defendant's, their agents,
servants, independent contractors and/or employees as aforesaid. This plaintiff, Judith Katz sustained
these injuries when she leapt to her daughter's rescue and attempted to extinguish the flames that
were engulfing her daughter.
98. That the said occurrence and serious and severe injuries sustained by this plaintiff were
occasioned solely and wholly through and by reason of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence
of the defendants, without any negligence or want of care on the part of this plaintiff in any manner
contributing thereto.

99. The said acts and conduct of the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees was
willll, wanton and u n l a f i l and was done by the defendants with a wanton disregard for the life,
health and safety of the plaintiffs herein so as to justify the imposition of punitive damages on behalf
of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LAURA KATZ, demandsjudgment against the Defendants in the

FIRST and SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION in a sum greater than the jurisdictional limit of all
Lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, as well as the imposition of punitive
damages for the wanton, willful and reckless disregard of this plaintiffs life, and the Plaintiff,
JUDITH KATZ, demandsjudgment against the defendants in the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION in
a sum greater than the jurisdictional limit of all Lower Courts which would otherwise have
jurisdiction, as well as the imposition of punitive damages for the wanton, willful and reckless
disregard of this plaintiffs life, altogether with the costs, interest and disbursements of this action.

Dated: New York, New York

December 16,2015

office and P.O. Address

250 West 57thStreet
Suite 1619
New York, New York 10107
Telephone (2 12) 425-7775

BCOZ "(32 '130S3H.ldX3 NOlWIWV03

'3aE5BC93Q LO 'ON '317
ALNn03 31kIOA M3N
>UBA M3N A 0 3lWlS'3lf8rtdAUVlOW
N~Wd3ClN331HJ.W