NCW &&pF cF - On Point · card table arrangement, ... 69 , “70”, 71 , 72 and 73 of the...

I O N I112112007

Index No.: 07-603384 Plaintiffs,

-against-

POSY FLORAL DESIGN STUDIO, INC. and PAULA ARAKAS,

ANSWER

NCW f9m Tni j h r - p / 271

The Defendants, POSY FLORAL DESIGN STUDIO, LNC. and PAULA &&pF’cF attorney, SOCRATES SCOTT L. NICHOLAS, ESQ., Answer the Plaintiffs’ complaint, as

follows:

1. Admit that Defendant, Posy Floral. Design Studio, Inc. (hereinafter “Posy

Designs”) agreed to provide flower arrangements and floral design fixtures and installations

for Plaintiffs, Elana Glatt and Tobi Glatt, for the agreed and reasonable price of $27,435.14,

but Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph “1” of the

Complaint.

2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “2”, “3”, “20”, “21” and “28” of the

Complaint.

3. Deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs YY’, “34”, “35”, “36”. <&37”, “ 3 8 7 3 , “39”, “40”’ “41” &<4ZY, “4693, b 6 5 2 Y Y , “53”. b b 5 4 Y Y , <<5@>, CL5799, b b 5 8 9 7 , “ 5 9 7 7 ,

Y

. *c, “6 1”’ “62”, “63” and “74” of the Complaint.

4. Defendant, Paula Arakas (si loyee of the corporate Defendant, Posy

Designs, and accordingly denies each and eveqy&legation contained in Paragraphs “5” of the 1 %

Complaint. L , ,. i+d&

5 . The allegations contained in Paragraphs “7” and “8” of the Complaint, to the

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 13

On Point NewsOn Point News

http://www.onpointnews.com


extent they refer to matters of law, are referred to the Court for disposition and determination.

Posy Designs admits having provided Plaintiff, Elana Glatt, with several

e-mail proposals, regarding the agreed flower arrangements and floral design fixtures and

installations, but Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph “1 1” of

the Complaint.

6.

7. Posy Designs admits requiring a $1,000.00 non-refundable deposit for the

reservation of Posy Design’s services for the date of their wedding event, and admits having

presented a sample arrangement, but Defendants deny each and every other allegation

contained in Paragraphs “12”, “13” and “14” of the Complaint.

8. Posy Designs admits that Plaintiff, E l m Glatt, supplied a photo of a sample

floral arrangement via a low-resolution e-mail attachment, but Defendants deny each and

every other allegation contained in Paragraphs “I 5”, “16” and “17” of the Complaint.

9. Posy Designs admits to having agreed to a price of $27,435.14 for the flower

arrangements and the floral design fixtures and installations that were provided to Plaintiffs,

and further admits to its requirement of full payment in advance of its placement of orders for

the flowers and the equipment rentals it needed to place to fulfill the agreed floral design

arrangements, but Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraphs

“22”, “23”, “24”, “25” and “26” of the Complaint.

10. Posy Designs admits requesting payment for the agreed price of its flower

arrangements and floral design fixtures and installations by certified check due to its late

payment, and further admits to accepting credit cards on smaller purchases, but denies each

and every other allegation contained in Paragraphs “29”, “30” and “3 1”. Posy Designs further

clarifies that it in fact accepted the personal (uncertified) out-of-state check from the Plaintiff,

Tobi Glatt’s husband, Herbert Glatt, M.D., for the $26,435.14 agreed balance amount due.

1 1. Posy Designs admits that it i s a standard requirement and the usual custom for

floral design studios to require full payment in advance of the events they design, provide and

install for customers, but Defendants de& each and every other allegation contained in

2





Paragraph “32” of the Complaint.

12. Defendant, Posy Designs admits that the original flower arrangement sample

that it prepared for Plaintiffs contained deeper colored flowers, including calla lilies in black

and pink, roses in black and red, hydrangeas in shades of fuchsia and purple and orchids in

shades of fuchsia and pmk, but asserts that Plaintiff, Elam Glatt elected to change the colors

of the flowers she sought to have Posy Designs use for her wedding event to lighter pink

colors and tones. Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraphs

“43” and “44” of the Complaint.

13. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or accuracy of Plaintiffs allegations regarding their consultation with other florists, but

Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph “45” of the

Complaint.

14. Defendant, Posy Designs admits the importance of suiting floral design

arrangements to the venue in which they are to be presented and placed, but Defendants deny

each and every other allegation contained in Paragraphs “47”, “48”, “49”, 50” and “51” of the

Complaint.

15. Admit to the pricing of the bathroom arrangements, but Defendants deny each

and every other allegation contained in Paragraph “55” of the Complaint

16. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth or accuracy of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding what they would have agreed to pay for a

parLicular floral arrangement, but deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph

“60” of the Complaint.

17. Defendant, Posy Designs admits its recommendation of a substantial escort

card table arrangement, and its agreement of providing a suitable arrangement for the price of

$800.00, but Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph “64” of

the Complaint.

18. Defendants deny knowledge or idormation suflicient to form a belief as to

3





Plaintiffs’ state of mind or to their subjective opinions regarding the appearance of the floral

arrangements and designs provided by Posy Designs, but Defendants deny each and every

other allegation contained in Paragraphs “65” and “66” of the Complaint.

19. Defendant, Posy Design admits to having received a letter horn Plaintiff, Elana

Glatt, in request of a partial refund, but Defendants deny each and every other allegations

contained in Paragraphs “67”, “68”, “69”, “70”, “71”, “72” and “73” of the complaint.

ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20. Repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every denial hereinabove contained

with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein.

21. Admit that Defendant, Posy Floral Design Studio, Inc. (hereinafter “Posy

Designs”) agreed to provide flower arrangements and floral design fixtures and installations

for Plaintiffs, E l m Glatt and Tobi Glatt for the agreed and reasonable price of $27,435.14,

but Defendants deny each and every other allegation contahed in Paragraph “76” of the

Complaint.

22. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “77”, “78”

and “79” of the Complaint.

ATVSWERING THE COMPLAINT’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION


with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein

24. Admit that Defendant, Posy Designs agreed to provide flower arrangements

and floral design fixtures and installations to Plaintiffs, E l m Glatt and Tobi Glatt, including

various rental items for the agreed and reasonable price of $27,435.14, but Defendants deny

each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph “8 1” of the Complaint.

25. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “82”,

“83”, “84”) “85” and “86” of the Complaint.

26. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph “87” of the Complaint

and refer all matters of law to the Court for determination.

4





ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION



28. Denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “89”, “go”, “91”,

“92”, “93”, “94”, “95”, “97”, “98” and “99” of the Complaint.

29. Defendant, Posy Designs denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to Plaintiffs’ state of mind or as to their basis for deciding on their agreement with

Posy Designs, but Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph

“96” of the Complaint.

ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT’S FOURTFl CAUSE OF ACTION

Repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every denial hereinabove contained 30.


3 1. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “1 Ol”,

“lO2”, “103”, “104” and “105” ofthe Complaint.

ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT’S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION



33. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs Y07’’,

“108”, “109” and “1 lo” of the Complaint.

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for the relief sought herein.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFtRMATIVJ? DEFENSE

35. Defendant, Paula Arakas (sic), acted solely in her capacity as an employee of

the Defendant, Posy Floral Design Studio, Inc., with respect to any and all dealings with

Plaintiffs.

36. Defendant, Paula A r b , had no relationship with Plaintiffs, nor did she

5





conduct any business whatsoever with them, in her individual capacity.

37. Plaintiffs have no valid basis for commencing this action against Defendant,

Paula kakas in her individual capacity.

38.

Plaintiffs.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, Paula kakas has no liability to

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. Throughout the business dealings engaged in between the Defendant, Posy

Designs and the Plaintiffs, E l m Glatt and Tobi Glatt, Defendants had no encounters or

discussions with the Plaintiff, David Glatt with regard to Plaintiffs’ wedding event.

40. Plaintiff> David Glatt was never introduced to Defendants as being a customer

in the subject transaction, nor was he ever referred to as a party involved in any of the

decision-making that related to Posy Design’s work and services.

41. There was no business relationship between the Defendants and the Plaintiff,

David Glatt.

42. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Defendants on behalf

of the Plaintiff, David Glatt.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

43. Defendant, Posy Designs reached a number of transitional understandings with

Plaintiffs, E l m Glatt and Tobi Glatt, with respect to the flower arrangements and floral

design fixtures and installations that were to be provided for Plaintiffs’ wedding ceremony

and reception.

44. Notwithstanding, the aforesaid understandings, including the preparation of the

proposed sample flower arrangements that Posy Designs made and provided to Plaintiffs,

each such understanding and the samples themselves were subject to a great number of

subsequent changes made by Plaintiffs, Elana Glatt and Tobi Glatt. These modifications

included cbanges in: flower type, flower quantity and flower color, as well as numerous

6





changes to the previously agreed vases and attendant background fixtures and installations.

45. The instructions and directives issued by both the Plaintiff, Elana Glatt, as the

bride to be, and Plaintiff, Tobi Glatt, as the customer who paid for the flower arrangements

and floral design fixtures and installations, were often in complete or significant contradiction

to one another.

46. The extent to which there had been my purported misunderstanding as to the

flower arrangements and floral design fmtures and installations to be provided for their

wedding event, it would have been the dvect result of Plaintiffs’ o m indecision and their

culpable conduct in issuing conflicting and inconsistent directives.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATWE DEFENSE

47. Plaintiff, Tobi Glatt was the recognized customer for the business transaction

under which Defendant, Posy Designs was to provide the flower arrangements and floral

design fixtures and installations for the wedding for her son, David Glatt, and the bride to be,

Elana Glatt, the co-Plaintiffs herein. All payments were made by Tobi Glatt through her

husband, Herbert Glatt, M.D.

48. Plaintiff, Tobi Glatt, authorized the co-Plaintiff, Elana Glatt as her designated

liaison to make decisions on her behalf with regard to the aforesaid wedding event, while

retaining full control of the arrangements made for their rehearsal dimer.

49. Insofar as Elam Glatt w a s not the customer to the business transactions with

the Defendant, Posy Designs, but only an authorized liaison of Tobi Glatt, the Complaint

herein fails to state a cause of action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Elana Glatt

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATWE DEFENSE

50. Defendant, Posy Designs supplied Plaintiffs with flowers, consisting of pink

calla lilies, green roses with redpink rims, two-tone green with rust rimmed hydrangeas and

two-tone orchids in a shades of fuchsia and pink, as were specifically requested and directed

by .Plaintiff, Elana Glatt, notwithstanding that these selections were dran-mtically different





from the sample arrangement originally conceived and provided to Plaintiffs by Defendant,

Posy Designs.

51. The substance of Plaintiffs’ alleged complaint is completely inconsistent with

the final directives issued by Plaintiff, E l m Glatt, whose instructions were fulfilled in all

respects.

52. Plaintiffs are responsible for the outcome of the flower selections made by

them, which were significantly different than those conceived and recommended by

Defendant, Posy Designs.

53. Defendants bear no responsibility for Plaintiffs’ own floral selections, nor to

their dissatisfaction with the design decisions they ultimately chose to make.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

54. It is the common understanding of all reasonable floral design customers that

the selection of flowers will inevitably be subject to a natural and familiar degree of variation

that are intrinsic to flowers and that make them desirable and unique.

55. The natural variation of the flowers to be ordered and supplied by Defendant,

Posy Designs was appropriately disclaimed, both implicitly (by virtue of this ordinary

understanding of flower variation) and explicitly, by Posy Designs’ explanations at each stage

of the design selection process.

56. Defendants are not responsible for any inconsistency in color that may have

been the result of the flowers’ natural variation, nor are they liable to Plaintiffs for any

consequences derived therefrom.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIFMATWE DEFENSE

57. Notwithstanding the specific understandings reached between the parties, the

Plaintiffs, Elana Glatt and Tobi Glatt made significant changes to the flowers to be ordered, as

to both the quantity and color of the flowers, up until the final few hours of the latest possible

date that Posy Designs was able to place flower orders for Plaintiff‘s wedding event that were

8





known and expected to be imported directly from Holland.

58. The tardiness of Plaintiffs’ last minute directives, including their inconsistent

selections and the changes to their flower quantities and colors, impeded and limited the

sources available to Posy Designs for its acquisition of the flowers it needed to procure for the

agreed flower arrangements and floral designs.

59. The degree to which Defendant, Posy Designs may have been unable to better

attend to the agreed flower selections ordered for Plaintiffs’ wedding event was the direct

result of Plaintiffs culpable conduct. Notwithstanding the constraints on their purchasing

options, Defendants verily believe that they completely fulfilled Plaintiffs’ orders as

requested, and that they properly delivered and composed the flower arrangements and

displays for Plaintiffs’ wedding event.

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

60. The Complaint admits Plaintiffs’ recognition of the design importance placed

on coordinating the color scheme for a wedding event, which Posy Design attended to by

providing a timely sample arrangement over six (6) months in advance of the scheduled

wedding event.

61. The complaint fails, however, to reveal and acknowledge Plaintiffs’

continuous series of changes and substitutions as to the floral arrangements that were to be

ordered, including Plaintif&’ final selections regarding flower types, quantities and colors.

62. Plaintiffs’ asserted claim that the flowers and floral designs had a negative

impact on their wedding event is disingenuous and untrue.

63. Plaintiffs continued to make changes to the color choices of the flowers they

selected up until the week immediately preceding their wedding event. This would have

made it impossible for Plaintiffs to coordinate the color of the flowers with any of the other

items they now contend they would have liked to match.

64. Plaintiffs’ cannot hold Defendants responsible for the consequences of

Plaintiffs’ own inability to reach a fd decision before it became too late to coordinate any

9





other items at their wedding to those last minute changes, especially given the dramatic nature

and extent of the changes Plaintiffs chose to make to their floral color scheme.

65. Furthermore, Plaintiffs never provided Defendants with any color samples of

the items they now wish had been matched to better coordinate their wedding event.

66. Plaintiffs’ alleged dissatisfaction with the coordination of the floral colors with

the other elements of their wedding event was a direct result of their culpable conduct in

making these decisions in the m e r and timing that they did, which was outside of

Defendants’ control and against Defendants’ recommendations and advice.

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

67.

68.

Defendants engaged in no unfair or deceptive business practices whatsoever.

The allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint fail to comply with the usual standards

and expectations of a reasonable floral design customer, which precludes Plaintiffs from

asserting a cause of action for their purported claim under New York General Business Law

5 349.

69. The business transaction for Defendants’ services consisted of custom work

and services that fall outside the scope of consumer business transactions covered by New

York‘s General Business Law 9 349.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants d e m d Judgment against Plaintiffs, With regard to

their Complaint, as follows:

(i) Dismissing each of the purported Causes of Action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

(ii)

(iii)

A judgment for Defendants’ attorney fees and the costs and expenses incurred in having to defend against Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

An award of sanctions against the Plaintiff, E l m Glatt as a duly licensed attorney, under the provisions of 22 NYCRR 9 130-l.la, for the commencement of Plaintiffs’ frivolous and malevolent lawsuit herein;

An award of sanctions against each of the co-Plainti€€s, David Glatt and Tobi Glatt, under the provisions of 22 NYCRR § 130-l.la, for the fiivolous commencement of the within action; together with

(iv)

10





(iv) Such other and further relief as the Court deems to be just and proper.

DATED: New York, New York November 15,2007

Yours, etc.,

SOCRATES SCOTT L. NICHOLAS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants Office and P.O. Address: 150 East 5Sfh Street, l@ floor New York, New York 10155 (212) 751-1000

To: ELANA GLATT, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs, Pro Se and Tobi Glatt and David Glatt 150 East 69' Street, Apt. 8-J New York, New York 10021 (2 12) 73 7-4923

11





AFFIRMATION OF MAIL,ING

SOCRATES SCOTT L. NICHOLAS, EsQ., being duly admitted to practice

before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms and states the following under the

penalties for perjury.

That your affirmant is not a party to the action, is over the age of Eighteen

(1 8) years, and resides in City, County and State of New York.

That on the 19* day of November, 2007, your affirmant served the within

Answer upon E l m Glatt, Esq., at her designated address for the service of same on behalf

of the Plaintiffs, Elam Glatt, Tobi Glatt and David Glatt, at 150 East 69’h Street, Apt. 8-J,

New York, New York 10021, by depositing a copy of said Answer enclosed in a postpaid

properly addressed wrapper, in an official depository wnder the exclusive care and custody

of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York.

DATED: New York, New York November 19,2007





- - -;

. . . . ,. . - __ .. . . . -... .., . . . . .. . . .

I . . . . .

Plaintiffs

- Against- POSY P L O W DESIGN STUDIO, I I C . and PAULA ARAKAS,

Defendants.

ANSWER

SOCRATES SCOTT L. NICHOLAS A ttorneyqs) for DEFENDANTS

Office and Post Office Address, Telephone

150 EAST 5STH STREET, 1 6nl FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10155

(212) 751-1000

To

Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.

Dated: Attorney(s) for

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

0 NOTICE OF E M R Y

that the within is a (certif ied) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on

CI NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

that an order will be presented for settlement to the HON. within named Court, at on at

Dated.

M.

of which the within is a rue copy one of the judges of the





NCW &&pF cF - On Point · card table arrangement, ... 69 , “70”, 71 , 72 and 73 of the...

Documents

Transcript of NCW &&pF cF - On Point · card table arrangement, ... 69 , “70”, 71 , 72 and 73 of the...