FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/22/2014 09:20 PM

INDEX NO. 160387/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/22/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
CHRISTINA DI MAURO KELLY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
SAGE KELLY,
Defendant.
Index No.
Plaintiff designates
New York County
as the place of trial.
The basis of the
venue is the residence
of defendant.
SUMMONS
-----------------------------------x Defendant resides at
995 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York
To the above-named Defendant:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this
action and to serve a copy of your answer on plaintiff's attorney
within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of
the date 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, judgment will be taken against you by default
for the relief demanded.
Dated: October 22, 2014
New York, New York
Wii am S. Beslow, Esq.
Attorney for plaintiff
623 Fifth Avenue, 24th floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 698-1171
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
CHRISTINA DI MAURO KELLY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Index No.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
SAGE KELLY,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------x
Plaintiff, Christina Di Mauro Kelly, by her attorney,
William S. Beslow, as and for her verified complaint, alleges:
General Background
1. Plaintiff is a resident of the City, County, and
State of New York, and was a resident of the City, County, and
State of New York at all material times hereinafter mentioned.
2. Defendant is a resident of the City, County, and
State of New York, and was a resident of the City, County, and
State of New York at all material times hereinafter mentioned.
3. Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 2,
2002.
4. Plaintiff and defendant have two children, Cameron
Kelly (born on April 2, 2004) and Logan Kelly (born on December
10, 2007) (collectively, the "Children").
5. During the period between the date of Cameron's
birth and October 2013, plaintiff was Cameron's primary
caregiver.
6. During the period between the date of Logan's birth
and October 2013, plaintiff was Logan's primary caregiver.
7. Upon information and belief, in October 2013,
defendant commenced a divorce action against plaintiff in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
("Divorce Action No. 1.")
6. Defendant did not effectuate service of process in
Divorce Action No. 1 within the period of 120 days following the
filing of the Summons in the office of the Clerk of New York
County.
7. During the period between October 2013 and August
14, 2014, defendant did not disclose to plaintiff that he had
commenced Divorce Action No. 1.
8. During the period between October 2013 and June 27,
2014, plaintiff, defendant, and the Children resided together at
the parties' residences located at 995 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York (the "NYC Apt") and 143 Northside Drive, Sag Harbor, New
York (the "Sag Harbor Residence").
9. During the period between October 2013 and June 27,
2014, plaintiff continued to be the Children's primary caregiver.
10. On or about June 27, 2014, defendant commenced an
action for divorce against plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York ("Divorce Action No. 2'').
2
11. The Verified Complaint in Divorce Action No. 2
requests the Court in such action to award the parties joint
custody of the Children.
12. Upon information and belief, as of June 27, 2014,
defendant believed that plaintiff was a fit parent, capable of
making sound custodial decisions in the best interests of the
Children.
Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine and Other Illegal Substances
a. Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine and Other Illegal
Drugs During the Parties' Courtship
13. Plaintiff and defendant met in January 2000.
14. Within several hours after meeting plaintiff,
defendant invited plaintiff to return with him to his apartment
and, at his apartment, defendant requested plaintiff to join in
him in snorting lines of cocaine.
15. During the period of the parties' courtship,
defendant snorted lines of cocaine on virtually each occasion in
which the parties engaged in leisure activities.
16. During the period of the parties' courtship,
defendant snorted lines of cocaine on virtually each occasion in
which plaintiff and he socialized with defendant's friends,
colleagues, and business associates (including but not limited
to, Ben Lorello, John Park, Dung Nguyen, Michael Gerardi, Trip
Wolfe, Mark Monroe, and Dan Klock, all of whom also snorted lines
of cocaine. (Over the years, the group - of which defendant
3
acted as "ringleader" - expanded to include Mark Hosny, Clay
Segall, Bjorn Koch, Mark Beer, Max Newland, Ned Grace, Andrew
Fisher, Sloane Angell, David Cooney, Michael Jaffe, and Peter
Maiden), all of whom also snorted lines of cocaine and many of
whom ingested other illegal drugs with defendant. (These
individuals are collectively referred to below as "Defendant's
Drug Cohorts.")
17. During the period of the parties' courtship,
defendant snorted heroin at The Tavern, a club in Southampton,
New York, causing defendant to be so disoriented that without
shoes, defendant attempted to walk - barefoot - a distance of
several miles from The Tavern to the horne in which the parties
were then renting a "share house."
18. The principal source of the cocaine snorted by
defendant was a drug dealer, who made "horne deliveries" to
defendant at defendant's apartment then located in a building on
57th Street between Lexington and Third Avenues.
b. Defendant's Abuse of Cocaine, Special-K,
Molly, "Mushrooms", and Ecstasy Following
the Parties' Marriage
19. Following the parties' marriage, defendant
continued to abuse cocaine, as well as other illegal substances.
20. Commencing in or about 2003, defendant began to
purchase cocaine and other illegal drugs from a "high-end" drug
dealer, Glen ("Defendant's Drug Dealer").
4
21. From time to time during the period from in or
about 2003 through in or about 2008, defendant purchased ecstasy
tablets from Defendant's Drug Dealer.
22. During the period from 2003 through 2008,
defendant ingested ecstasy tablets so often and in such large
quantities that he developed an inordinate tolerance. On
numerous occasions, defendant ingested 2 or 3 ecstasy tablets
within a period of several hours.
23. During the period from 2008 through 2014,
defendant ingested Molly, a powder form of ecstasy. Defendant
routinely stored Molly and cocaine in bags (or, from time to
time, in squirt bottles designed and manufactured to contain a
nasal spray) in the NYC Apt and in the Sag Harbor Residence, even
though Cameron (and, after her birth, Logan) lived in each
residence.
24. Commencing in 2011, defendant began to use and
abuse a hallucinogenic drug, "mushrooms." Often, defendant
ingested enormous quantities of "mushrooms" at the NYC Apt or at
the Sag Harbor Residence. On one occasion in the summer of 2011,
defendant and several of Defendant's Drug Cohorts (including, but
not limited to, Mark Hosny) continually ingested "mushrooms"
throughout the day at the Sag Harbor Residence, while the
Children were present - a day designated and celebrated by
defendant as "Mushroom Day."
5
25. In or about 2007, defendant ingested an
extraordinarily dangerous, illegal drug known as "Special-K" at
the Sag Harbor Residence, while Cameron was there. Defendant
became so discombobulated and depressed - thus, entering and
experiencing the phenomenon called a "K-Hole" - that he
desperately clung to Cameron for several hours, causing Cameron
to have palpable feelings of fear for her father's well-being.
26. Continuously during the period from 2008 through
May 2014, defendant abused cocaine, and he routinely purchased
cocaine in large quantities from Defendant's Drug Dealer, which
defendant often distributed to and shared with a group of
individuals - the core of which consisted of Defendant's Drug
Cohorts.
27. Upon information and belief, ln May 2014,
defendant and several of Defendant's Drug Cohorts engaged in a
several-day, illegal "drugfest" in Las Vegas, Nevada
1
in which
they ingested various illegal substances, notably cocaine, and
engaged in numerous forms of wild behavior, including but not
limited to, engagement in sexual relations with prostitutes.
28. During the foregoing period, defendant's abuse of
illegal drugs, as well as alcohol, often caused him to "pass
out," including, for example, at a group gathering of defendant's
associates at Jefferies and Company, Inc., at the Sag Harbor
Residence in the summer of 2011 or 2012, to urinate in the
6
parties' bed or on the wall in the parties' bedroom, or to
defecate in the parties' bed or on the floor adjacent to the
parties' bedroom (on one occasion causing plaintiff and Cameron,
who was suffering from the flu but who witnessed a doorman
helping to carry defendant into the NYC Apt and depositing him
onto the parties' bed, to jointly clean-up defendant's fecal
matter) .
29. Throughout this period, defendant regularly stored
cocaine and occasionally stored other illegal drugs at the NYC
Apt and at the Sag Harbor Residence - generally storing such
drugs on a shelf or in a safe located in his closet. On one
occasion in the summer of 2011 or 2012, after ingesting cocaine
and other illegal drugs during the course of an evening at the
Sag Harbor Residence, defendant or Mark Hosny, one of Defendant's
Drug Cohorts, inadvertently left a bag of cocaine on a pool table
in a downstairs room in the finished basement. Cameron found the
bag of cocaine on the following morning and had already placed
her index number into the bag when plaintiff discovered what was
happening and immediately removed Cameron's finger from the bag,
seized the bag from Cameron, and wiped cocaine from Cameron's
finger.
1
Upon information and belief, the illegal "drugfest" was part of the
7
Plaintiff's Use of Alcohol and Cocaine
30. On the night they met, defendant introduced
plaintiff to cocaine. Prior to her meeting defendant, plaintiff
had never used cocaine - or any other illegal drug.
31. During the course of the parties' relationship,
defendant importuned plaintiff to join him in ingesting cocaine.
32. Plaintiff's ingestion of cocaine became an
indispensable prerequisite to defendant's willingness and
interest in engaging in sexual relations with her.
33. During the long stretches of time when plaintiff
did not ingest cocaine (i.e., during periods when plaintiff was
pregnant or was breastfeeding Cameron or Logan), defendant had
virtually no interest in engaging in sexual relations with
plaintiff.
34. At the insistence of defendant, the parties'
ingestion of alcohol and cocaine became the centerpiece of their
social lives, as well as the foundation for their marital
relationship.
35. Plaintiff and defendant ingested cocaine together
as recently as May 2014.
Plaintiff's Role as the Children's Primary Caregiver
35. From the time of the Children's respective births
through the commencement of Divorce Action No. 2, plaintiff had
been the Children's primary caregiver.
celebration for Mark Hosny's bachelor's party.
8
36. From the time of the Children's respective births
through the commencement of Divorce Action No. 2, defendant had
delegated virtually all child-rearing duties and functions to
plaintiff.
Defendant's Decision to Commence Divorce Action No. 2 and His
Installation of Hidden Recording Devices in the NYC Apt
37. Upon information and belief, by not later than late
May 2014, defendant decided to obtain a divorce from plaintiff.
38. Upon information and belief, commencing in or about
late May 2014 or early to mid June 2014, defendant ceased to
ingest cocaine, Molly, mushrooms, or other illegal drugs so that
he might test "negative" in the event a court were to order him
to submit to a drug test.
39. In mid-July 2014, defendant caused the installation
of hidden recording devices in the NYC Apt (the "Hidden
Cameras")
40. During the period from on or about July 16, 2014
through July 30, 2014, the Hidden Cameras detected plaintiff
snorting cocaine and ingesting alcohol in the NYC Apt -
activities which defendant had encouraged and in which defendant
had participated throughout the course of the parties'
relationship.
41. During the first two weeks of August, 2014, Cameron
and Logan were in the care and custody of defendant at the Sag
Harbor Residence. During this period, defendant continually
9
represented to plaintiff that would soon bring the Children back
to New York City so that they could be with plaintiff.
42. During this period, and despite his
representations to plaintiff, defendant did not return the
Children to the NYC Apt.
43. On August 10, 2014, plaintiff advised defendant
that she intended to travel that evening to the Sag Harbor
Residence so they she could spend time with the Children. Upon
information and belief, in order to cause plaintiff not to travel
to the Sag Harbor Residence, defendant caused his father to
advise plaintiff's mother that if she were travel to the Sag
Harbor Residence that evening, defendant would telephone the Sag
Harbor Police and request the Police to place plaintiff under
arrest.
44. By reason of the foregoing threat, plaintiff did
not travel to Sag Harbor to be with the Children on August 10,
11, 12, or 13, 2014.
Defendant's Motion for Temporary Custody of the Children
45. Armed with videotapes and still photographs taken
by the Hidden Cameras during the last two weeks of July 2014, on
August 14, 2014, defendant moved the Court in Divorce Action No.
2 for, inter alia, an award of exclusive possession of the NYC
Apt, an order imposing supervision of plaintiff's parental access
with the Children, and an order granting defendant temporary
custody of the Children (the "Custody Motion").
10
46. In support of the Custody Motion, defendant
submitted an affidavit, sworn to August 2 4, 2 014 ("De f. 's Aff. ")
(A copy of Def. Aff. [without exhibits] is attached hereto as
Exhibit "1.")
47. Def. Aff. is entirely silent as to defendant's use,
let alone abuse, of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K,
heroin, Molly, and ecstasy.
48. By ignoring and failing to disclose his use and
abuse of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K, heroin, Molly,
and ecstasy, defendant defrauded the Court in Divorce Action No.
2 by suggesting falsely that he, himself, did not - and does not-
use and abuse alcohol and illegal drugs.
49. By ignoring and failing to disclose his use and
abuse of alcohol, cocaine, mushrooms, Special-K, heroin, Molly,
and ecstasy, defendant defrauded the Court in Divorce Action No.
2 by falsely suggesting that plaintiff's use of alcohol and
cocaine were not condoned and encouraged by him.
50. Def. Aff. suggests falsely to the Court in Divorce
Action No. 2 that consumption of alcohol and ingestion of cocaine
were not centerpieces of the parties' lifestyle throughout their
courtship and throughout their marriage.
51. Def. Aff. suggests falsely that defendant had only
recently discovered that plaintiff had consumed alcohol and had
ingested cocaine in the NYC Apt while the Children were present,
notwithstanding the fact that both plaintiff and he had done so
11
in the NYC Apt continuously since the time of their purchase of
it in 2007, as well as in the Sag Harbor Residence continuously
since the time of their purchase of it in 2004.
52. Plaintiff responded to Def. Aff. by affidavit,
sworn to August 20, 2014 ("Pl. Aff. ") A copy of Pl. Aff [without
exhibits] is attached hereto as Exhibit "2.")
53. In response to Pl. Aff., defendant filed a Reply
Affidavit, sworn to by him on August 26, 2014 ("Def. Rep. Aff. ")
A copy of Def. Rep. Aff. [without exhibits] is attached hereto as
Exhibit "3."
54. In Def. Aff., defendant falsely denies that he has
used, and abused, alcohol, cocaine, Special-K, mushrooms, Molly,
and heroin during the course of the parties' marriage.
55. Defendant made false statements to the Court in
Divorce Action No. 2 denying his use and abuse of alcohol,
cocaine, and other illegal drugs so as to interfere with and
obstruct plaintiff's custodial rights, including her rights of
parental access to the Children.
56. As a consequence of defendant's deliberate lies to
the Court in Divorce Action No. 2, including defendant's
purposeful failure to disclose (in Def. Aff.) and admit (in Def.
Reply Aff.) defendant's use and abuse of alcohol, cocaine,
mushrooms, ecstasy, Molly, Special-K, and heroin, the Court in
Divorce Action No. 2 severely restricted plaintiff's parental
access to the Children.
12
57. Defendant's lies to the Court in Divorce Action No.
2 were intended to cause, caused, and continued to cause
plaintiff to suffer extraordinary emotional pain, distress, and
suffering resulting from the enormous restriction in her parental
access to the Children imposed upon her by the Court in Divorce
Action No. 2.
58. Upon information and belief, the Children are
experiencing emotional pain and are suffering considerably by
reason of defendant's actions and the resulting isolation of them
from plaintiff, who had been their primary caregiver since the
respective times of their births.
59. The Children's pain and suffering, as described in
paragraph 58 above, exacerbate plaintiff's pain and suffering.
60. In or about late September 2014, defendant told
plaintiff that he knew there was no reason for supervision of
plaintiff's parental access with the Children.
61. Notwithstanding defendant's foregoing statement
described in paragraph 60 below, defendant has continued to
insist upon the presence of a social worker to supervise
plaintiff's exercise of parental access with the Children.
62. Defendant's conduct, as set forth in paragraphs 37
through 61 above, was calculated, designed, conceived, and
executed so as to deprive plaintiff of her right to exercise
custody of and parental access with the Children, to obstruct
plaintiff from exercising her rights as the de facto joint
13
custodial parent of the Children, and to interfere with
plaintiff's right to have liberal parental access with the
Children, as well as to have the Children maintain their primary
residence with her.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
a. awarding plaintiff damages in the amount of Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000) arising out of and as a consequence
of defendant's obstruction of and interference with her right to
exercise de facto joint custody of the Children and to have
liberal parental access with the Children, as well as to have the
Children maintain their primary residence with her;
b. awarding plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of
Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000);
c. granting plaintiff an award of counsel fees; and
d. and granting plaintiff such other and further relief
as this Court shall deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
October 22, 2014
The Law Office of William S. Beslow
Attorney for plaintiff
623 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 698-1171
14
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK
ss. :
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Christina Kelly, being duly sworn, says:
I am the plaintiff in the captioned action.
I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know
the contents thereof. The Verified Complaint is true to my own
knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged
upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it
to be true.
Sworn to before me this
22nd day of October, 2014.
WILLI BESLOW
Notary Public, State w York
No. 02BE6232883
York ounty
Commission Expires December 13, 2014
Christina
3
Attorney Certification
To the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the
presentation of the annexed Verified Complaint and the
contentions contained therein are not frivolous as defined in
Section 130-1.1, subd. (c) of the Rules of the Chief
Administrator.
Dated: New York, New York
October 22, 2014
William S. Beslow, Esq.
Attorney for plaintiff
623 Fifth Avenue, 24th floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 698-1171
2
Client Certification
I, Christina Kelly, hereby certify under penalty of
perjury that I have carefully read and reviewed the foregoing
Verified Complaint and all of the information contained therein
is true and accurate in all respects to the best of my knowledge
and understanding.
I further certify under the penalty of perjury that
neither my attorney nor anyone acting on my attorney's behalf was
the source of any of the factual information contained in the
Verified Complaint; that I provided all the factual information
contained therein to my attorney; and that I understand that in
executing the Attorney Certification required by 22 NYCRR
202.16(e), my attorney is relying entirely upon the information
provided to him by me and upon my certification that all such
information is true and accurate.
I further certify that the Verified Complaint contains
all information which I provided to my attorney which is relevant
thereto and that my attorney has not deleted, omitted, or
excluded any such information.
Dated: October 22, 2014
New York, New York