SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY
OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
SOPHIA
HARRIS and MICHAEL YOONY,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC., KEVIN CHUN A/K/A MIN KWAN CHUN, CONE CHUN A/K/A JEONG SOOK CHUN,
MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC., and NORTH PARK SPA & NAILS, INC.
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
|
Index No. __________
Date
purchased and filed:
Aug. 3, 2000
SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS
Plaintiff designates venue
in New York
County. The basis of Venue is Plaintiff's residence.
Plaintiff HARRIS resides
at
425 Gate House Road
New York, NY 10583
|
TO ABOVE-NAMED
DEFENDANTS:
You
are hereby summoned to answer the Second Amended Complaint in this
action and
to serve a copy of your Answer, or if the Second Amended Complaint is
not
served with this Second Amended Summons, to serve a Notice of
Appearance on
Plaintiffs' attorneys within twenty (20) days after the service of this
Second
Amended 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,
judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded
in the
Second Amended Complaint.
Dated:
New
York, New York
October
18, 2001
Yours, etc.,
PETER M.
AGULNICK, P.C.
By:__________________________
Peter M. Agulnick
Attorneys for
Plaintiffs
SOPHIA HARRIS and MICHAEL YOONY
321 Broadway,
2nd Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212)
571-2266
TO:
JOHN
DOE, ESQ.
Attorneys for
Defendants
ARRIS SPA
& NAILS, INC., and
KEVEN CHUN
A/K/A MIN KWAN CHUN and
CONNIE CHUN
A/K/A JEONG SOOK CHUN
222
Mitchell Place, Suite 111
White
Plains, New York 10601
(914)
555-5555
MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC.,
Defendant
434 Main
Street
ARRIS,
New York 10504
NORTH PARK SPA & NAILS, INC., Defendant
585
Main Street
ARRIS,
New York
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY
OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
SOPHIA
HARRIS and MICHAEL YOONY,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC., KEVIN CHUN A/K/A MIN KWAN CHUN, CONNIE CHUN A/K/A JEONG SOOK
CHUN, MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC. and NORTH PARK SPA & NAILS, INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
|
Index No. _________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
Plaintiffs
SOPHIA HARRIS and MICHAEL YOONY, through their attorneys, hereby amend
their complaint, and allege the
following,
upon information and belief:
PARTIES
1. At all
times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff
SOPHIA HARRIS (hereinafter “SOPHIA”) was and is a resident of the State
of New York, County of Westchester.
2. At all times
hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff
MICHAEL YOONY (hereinafter
“MICHAEL”) was and is a resident of the State of New
York, County
of Queens.
3. At all times
hereinafter mentioned, Defendant
ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC. (hereinafter "ARRIS SPA") was and is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York
and
doing business in Westchester
County.
4. At all times
hereinafter mentioned, Defendant
KEVIN CHUN A/K/A KWAN CHUN,
(hereinafter "KEVIN"), was and is a resident of the State of New York, County of Westchester.
5. At all times hereinafter
mentioned, Defendant CONNIE CHUN A/K/A JEONG SOOK CHUN
(hereinafter "CONNIE") was and is a
resident of the State of New York, County of Westchester.
6. At all times hereinafter
mentioned, Defendant MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC. (hereinafter "MOMOSONO
RESTAURANT") was and is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York and doing business
in Westchester
County.
7. At all times hereinafter
mentioned, Defendant NORTH PARK SPA & NAILS, INC. (hereinafter
"NORTH
PARK SPA") was and is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State
of New York and doing business in Westchester County.
FACTS
8.
On or about October 21, 1998, Defendant KEVIN entered into a written
agreement to form a closely held corporation known as "ARRIS Spa &
Nails, Inc." The corporation was to
be located at 575 Main
Street,
ARRIS, New York
10504, and
was to do business as a
nail salon.
9. A copy of the
written contract, which is dated
October 21, 1998, is
annexed to this Second Amended Complaint and is hereby adopted by
reference.
10. In
particular, the contract provides that
Plaintiff SOPHIA would
contribute $25,000 and own 25% of the corporate stock; Plaintiff
MICHAEL would
contribute $25,000 and own 25% of the corporate stock; and Defendant
KEVIN
would contribute $50,000 and own 50% of the stock.
11. Defendant
KEVIN made unequivocal
representations that he would use
Plaintiffs' initial capital contributions for the ARRIS SPA corporation
and
that Plaintiffs would, in turn, be given a percentage of the corporate
shares
as discussed above.
12. Defendant KEVIN’s
representations to the
Plaintiffs were knowing lies, which
were made for the purpose of illegally and immorally stealing
Plaintiffs'
money.
13. Plaintiffs
did not know Defendant KEVIN was
lying or have any reason to
know he was lying or intending to exploit them and commit a fraud upon
them.
14. Unknown to the
Plaintiffs, on October 19,
1998, Defendants KEVIN and
CONNIE, entered into a lease agreement, without Plaintiffs' knowledge
or
consent, with Garson Brothers ARRIS, LLC, the owners of 575 Main
Street, ARRIS,
New York, as tenants instead of "ARRIS Spa & Nails, Inc.," as the
parties had contractually agreed to.
15. In addition, Defendant KEVIN
had also formed with his wife, Defendant CONNIE, a corporation under
the name
"ARRIS Spa & Nails, Inc." He did not
issue shares to Plaintiffs, as
Defendant KEVIN was
contractually obligated to do.
16. The formation of the ARRIS SPA
corporation, without Plaintiffs as shareholders, was without the
consent or
knowledge of the Plaintiffs. Moreover,
it was a contrary of the parties' contractual agreement.
It was also done in an attempt to defraud and
exploit the Plaintiffs.
17. On or
about October 30, 1998, SOPHIA, MICHAEL, and KEVIN decided to
increase ARRIS’s initial capital investment from $60,000 to $100,000.
18. Accordingly,
the parties modified their prior
written agreement by
signing a new contract, dated October 30, 1998.
19. The
October 30, 1998 contract had the
identical terms of the prior October 21, 1998 contract except it
increased the
initial capital investment from $60,000 to $100,000.
Under the new agreement, each shareholder was
to own the same percentages of shares as was agreed previously, but his
or her
initial capital investment was to increase proportionally so that ARRIS
would
have $100,000 capitalization.
20. SOPHIA and
MICHAEL gave additional money to KEVIN to satisfy the increase in the
initial
capital investment proportional to the percentage of shares they were
supposed
to own.
21. A copy of
the written contract, which is dated October 30, 1998, is annexed to
this
Second Amended Complaint and is hereby adopted by reference.
22. On or
about December 13, 1998, KEVIN sold 10% of ARRIS shares, which he
owned, to
SOPHIA for $10,000.
23. KEVIN and
SOPHIA effectuated this transfer of shares by signing a “Stock
Transfer”
Agreement, dated December 13, 1998.
24. In return
for signing the stock transfer agreement, SOPHIA paid KEVIN $10,000.
25. Notwithstanding, KEVIN never issued shares to
SOPHIA or MICHAEL.
26. A copy of
the Stock Transfer Agreement, which is dated October 30, 1998, is
annexed to
this Second Amended Complaint and is hereby adopted by reference.
27. Under the terms of the written
contracts (October 21, 1998, October 30, 1998, and December 13, 1998
agreements), the percentage of share ownership should have been as
follows:
|
Shareholder
|
Capital Contribution
|
% Equity Ownership
|
|
SOPHIA
|
$35,000
|
35%
|
|
MICHAEL
|
$25,000
|
25%
|
|
KEVIN
|
$40,000
|
40%
|
________________________________________________________________________
28. At all relevant times,
Defendant KEVIN had kept secret from the Plaintiffs—in an attempt to perpetuate
the fraud—that he had
formed the corporation and made himself and his
wife, CONNIE, the only shareholders, and excluded the Plaintiffs.
29. To date,
Defendants refuse to issue the shares
of stock to which
Plaintiffs are legally entitled.
30. In addition,
Defendants have stopped sharing
profits with Plaintiffs in
accordance with their contract, and now claim that Plaintiffs own no
interest
in ARRIS SPA.
31. Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE were
married at the
time of the three written
contracts were consummated and when were negotiated.
32. Defendant
CONNIE was aware of the binding
agreement between the
Plaintiffs and Defendant KEVIN.
33. In fact,
Defendant CONNIE actually heard all
or part of the negotiations
between her husband, Defendant KEVIN, and the Plaintiffs, which led to
contract
formation.
34. Moreover,
CONNIE actually saw all or parts of
the written contracts that
her husband, KEVIN, entered into with SOPHIA and MICHAEL at or shortly
after
they were entered into.
35. Defendant CONNIE made false
representations to Plaintiffs regarding her planned role in ARRIS SPA
in that
she would be an employee and not a shareholder.
36. Both KEVIN and CONNIE assumed
the positions of corporate officers of ARRIS SPA.
37. Defendant
KEVIN and CONNIE improperly used
money they obtained from
Plaintiffs, which was supposed to be used for ARRIS SPA, and, instead,
in an
attempt to shield the money from Plaintiffs, paid for expenses of
MOMOSONO
RESTAURANT.
38. Defendant
KEVIN and CONNIE improperly used
ARRIS SPA corporate money to
pay for debts of NORTH
PARK
spa, a corporation
owned by CONNIE and/or KEVIN.
39. Defendant
KEVIN and CONNIE opened NORTH PARK
SPA in the same town and on
the same street as ARRIS SPA, which was direct competition and
detrimental to ARRIS
SPA causing a loss of business to ARRIS SPA.
40. In addition,
KEVIN and CONNIE stole and
commingled ARRIS SPA corporate
money for their own personal use, including, in one known instance,
paying for
a family member’s dental bills out of ARRIS SPA corporate funds.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
(FRAUD)
41. Plaintiffs
repeat and realleges each
allegation set forth previously in
this complaint.
42. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE made false
representations to Plaintiffs.
43. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE made these false
representations with
knowledge and belief (scienter) that
the representations were false and for the purpose of exploiting
Plaintiffs.
44. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE intended to induce
Plaintiffs to enter into
a contract and pay money for the purpose of exploitation for their own
financial
benefit and, in essence, to steal Plaintiffs' money.
45. Plaintiffs
justifiability relied upon the
representations made by
Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE, respectively.
46. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE's acts were
illegal, despicable, reckless,
malicious, deliberate, and immoral.
47. As the result
of Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
's acts, Plaintiffs have
incurred damages.
48. Accordingly,
Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE are
liable for fraud.
49. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE are also liable
for punitive damages.
50. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE used the money
they fraudulently obtained
from Plaintiffs forforming the corporation ARRIS SPA.
51. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
continue to use
the funds that they
fraudulently obtained from Plaintiffs for ARRIS SPA.
This includes, but is not limited to, storing
Plaintiffs' funds in bank accounts in ARRIS SPA's corporate name.
52. The
corporation ARRIS SPA is being used for
the purpose of illegally
shielding funds that Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE have fraudulently
stolen from
the Plaintiffs.
53. Consequently, Defendant ARRIS
SPA is liable for fraud vicariously through Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
under a
theory of “‘reverse’ piercing of the corporate veil."
54. Defendant
ARRIS SPA is also liable for
punitive damages.
55. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE used the money
they fraudulently obtained
from Plaintiffs for forming the corporation MOMOSONO RESTAURANT.
56. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE continue to use
the funds that they
fraudulently obtained from Plaintiffs for MOMOSONO RESTAURANT. This includes, but is not limited to, storing
Plaintiffs' funds in bank accounts in MOMOSONO RESTAURANT 's corporate
name and
paying its debts.
57. The
corporation MOMOSONO RESTAURANT is being
used for the purpose of
illegally shielding funds that Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE have
fraudulently
stolen from the Plaintiffs.
58. Consequently, Defendant MOMOSONO
RESTAURANT is liable for fraud vicariously through Defendants KEVIN and
CONNIE
under a theory of “‘reverse’ piercing of the corporate veil."
59. Defendant
MOMOSONO RESTAURANT is also liable
for punitive damages.
60. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE used the money
they fraudulently obtained
from Plaintiffs for forming the corporation NORTH PARK SPA.
61. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
continue to use the funds that they fraudulently obtained from
Plaintiffs for NORTH
PARK SPA. This includes, but is not
limited to, storing Plaintiffs' funds in bank accounts in NORTH PARK
SPA's
corporate name and paying its debts.
62. The
corporation NORTH PARK SPA is being used
purpose of illegally
shielding funds that Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE have fraudulently
stolen from
the Plaintiffs.
63. Consequently, Defendant NORTH
PARK SPA is liable for fraud vicariously through Defendants KEVIN and
CONNIE
under a theory of “‘reverse’ piercing of the corporate veil."
64. Defendant
NORTH PARK SPA is also liable for
punitive damages.
SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
(CONVERSION)
65. Plaintiffs
gave Defendant KEVIN large sums of
money for a business that the three had agreed to form.
66. Defendant
KEVIN, with the help of Defendant
CONNIE, used the money for a
purpose not agreed upon.
67. Plaintiffs
demanded the return of their money
from Defendants KEVIN and
CONNIE.
68. Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE
improperly refused to return the money.
69. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE are therefore
liable for the tort of
conversion.
70. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
acted illegally, maliciously, and recklessly with the purpose of
intentionally
exploiting Plaintiffs.
71. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
are therefore liable for punitive damages for converting Plaintiffs
funds.
72. Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE
used the money for ARRIS SPA.
73.
Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE deposited the money into the bank account
of ARRIS SPA for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently shielding it
from
Plaintiffs.
74. Consequently, Defendant ARRIS
SPA is vicariously liable for conversion through Defendants KEVIN and
CONNIE
under a theory of "reverse piercing of the corporate veil."
75. Defendant ARRIS SPA is also
liable for punitive damages.
76. Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE
deposited the money into the bank account of MOMOSONO RESTAURANT for
the
purpose of illegally and fraudulently shielding it from Plaintiffs, and
has
paid the debts of MOMOSONO RESTAURANT with this money.
77. Consequently, Defendant
MOMOSONO RESTAURANT is vicariously liable for conversion through
Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE under a theory of "reverse piercing of the corporate
veil."
78. Defendant MOMOSONO RESTAURANT
is also liable for punitive damages.
79. Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE
deposited the money into the bank account of NORTH PARK SPA for the
purpose of
illegally and fraudulently shielding it from Plaintiffs, and has paid
the debts
of NORTH PARK SPA with this money.
80. Consequently, Defendant NORTH
PARK SPA is vicariously liable for conversion through Defendants KEVIN
and
CONNIE under a theory of "reverse piercing of the corporate veil."
81. Defendant NORTH PARK SPA is
also liable for punitive damages.
THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST
CONNIE CHUN
(TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT)
<>
82. Plaintiffs repeat and
realleges each allegation set forth previously in this complaint.
83. A binding contract existed
between the Plaintiffs and Defendant KEVIN on or before the first week
of
October, 1998.
84. Defendant CONNIE knew of the
existence of this contract.
85. Defendant CONNIE intentionally
and, with malice towards Plaintiffs, induced her husband, Defendant
KEVIN, to
breach his contractual obligations.
86. As a result of the breach,
Plaintiffs have incurred damages, which include, but are not limited
to,
pecuniary loss and the loss of opportunities to make substantial
profits from
the contract.
87. Plaintiff CONNIE is therefore
liable for the tort of tortuous interference with a contract.
88. Plaintiff CONNIE is also
liable for punitive damages.
FOURTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST
KEVIN CHUN
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
89. Plaintiffs
SOPHIA and MICHAEL entered into a
binding agreement with
Defendant KEVIN.
90. The agreement
was supported by valuable
consideration.
91. Defendant
KEVIN intentionally breached this
agreement.
92. As a result
of the breach, Plaintiffs have
damages, which include, but
are not limited to, pecuniary loss and the loss of opportunities to
make
substantial profits from the contract.
93. Accordingly,
Defendant KEVIN is liable for
breach of contract.
FIFTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
94.
Plaintiffs
made payments to Defendants or had
their payments diverted to
Defendants, which thereby enriched them.
95. The
enrichment was at Plaintiffs’ expense.
96. There is no
adequate remedy at law.
97. The
circumstances are such that equity and
good conscience require
Defendants to make restitution.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST KEVIN
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)
98. An actual and
justiciable controversy
presently exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding
Plaintiffs’
ownership of shares of ARRIS SPA.
99. This Court
should adjudge that, under
the terms of the October
21, 1998 Agreement, October 30, 1998 Agreement, and December 13, 1998
Stock
Transfer Agreement, SOPHIA HARRIS owns 35% of ARRIS SPA’s total shares
and
MICHAEL YOONY owns 25% of ARRIS SPA’s total shares.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST KEVIN CHUN AND CONNIE CHUN ON
BEHALF OF ARRIS SPA &
NAILS, INC. AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS
(breach of
fiduciary duty/theft of corporate opportunity/conversion of corporate
assets/WASTE)
100. Defendants
KEVIN and CONNIE assumed the
positions of ARRIS SPA’s
corporate officers.
101. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
stole ARRIS SPA’s corporate funds for their own personal businesses and
to pay
for their own personal expenses.
102.
Defendant KEVIN and CONNIE formed a competing nail salon, NORTH PARK
SPA, for which CONNIE and/or KEVIN is(/are) the sole owner(s), in the same town and on the same street as
ARRIS
SPA.
103. The competing nail salon has
caused and/or will cause loss of business to ARRIS SPA, resulting in
loss of
profits and damages to its shareholders.
104. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
have breached their fiduciary duties as corporate officers, committed
conversion of corporate assets, have stolen corporate opportunities,
and
committed waste of corporate assets.
105. Without a preliminary and
permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from their unlawful acts,
ARRIS SPA,
its shareholders, and Plaintiffs will incur an irreparable injury for
which there
is no adequate remedy at law.
106. Defendants KEVIN and CONNIE
are therefore liable, pursuant to Bus. Corp. Law s 626 and 720, to
ARRIS SPA
and its shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty, theft of corporate
opportunity, and conversion of corporate assets.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs SOPHIA HARRIS
and MICHAEL YOONY demand
judgment as follows:
(a)
On the first cause of action (fraud), judgment against Defendants KEVIN
CHUN,
CONNIE CHUN, ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC., MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC.,
and NORTH
PARK SPA & NAILS, INC. for the following relief: (1) a permanent injunction as
described
below; (2) specific
performance of contract; (3) alternatively
to specific
performance, a money judgment in
the amount
of $10 million in actual, compensatory, and expectation damages and $10
million
in punitive damages;
(b)
on the second cause of action
(conversion),
judgment against Defendants KEVIN CHUN,
CONNIE CHUN, ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC., MOMOSONO RESTAURANT, INC.,
and NORTH
PARK SPA & NAILS, INC. for
the
following relief: (1) a permanent injunction as described below; (2) specific
performance of contract; (3) alternative to specific
performance, a money judgment in
the amount
of $10 million in actual, compensatory, and expectation damages and $10
million
in punitive damages;
(c)
on the third cause of action
(tortious
interference with a contract),
judgment against Defendant CONNIE CHUN for the following relief: (1) a permanent
injunction as described below; (2) a money
judgment in the amount
of $10 million in actual,
compensatory, and expectation damages and $10 million in punitive
damages;
(d)
on the fourth cause of action (breach
of
contract),
judgment against
Defendants KEVIN CHUN for the following relief: (1) specific performance of
contract; (2) alternative to
specific performance, money damages in the amount of $10 million in
actual,
compensatory, and expectation damages;
(e)
on the fifth cause of action (unjust
enrichment),
judgment against Defendants KEVIN CHUN,
CONNIE CHUN, ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC., for the following relief: (1) specific performance of contract; (2) alternative to specific
performance, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial but
not less
than $500,000.
(f)
on the sixth cause of action
(declaratory
judgment), pursuant
to CPLR 3001, adjudging that,
under the
terms of the October 21, 1998 Agreement, October 30, 1998 Agreement,
and
December 13, 1998 Stock Transfer Agreement, SOPHIA HARRIS owns 35% of
ARRIS SPA
& NAILS, INC.’s total shares and MICHAEL YOONY owns 25% of ARRIS
SPAN &
NAILS, INC.’s total shares;
(g)
on the seventh cause of action
(breach of
fiduciary duty/theft of corporate opportunity/conversion of corporate
assets), judgment
on behalf of ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC. against Defendants KEVIN CHUN,
CONNIE CHUN, pursuant to Bus. Corp. Law § 626, granting
all relief
available under Bus. Corp. Law § 720 including, but not limited
to, a an
accounting and a preliminary and permanent injunction: (1) enjoining KEVIN CHUN
and CONNIE CHUN from diverting and commingling ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC.
assets; (2) enjoining KEVIN CHUN and
CONNIE CHUN from operating or owning a nail salon within a reasonable
geographic area that will compete with ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC.,
including,
but not limited to, NORTH
PARK Spa &
Nails, Inc.; and (3)
enjoining KEVIN CHUN and CONNIE CHUN from using ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC.’s
money or assets for NORTH
PARK Spa &
Nails, Inc., Momosono
Restaurant,
Inc., or Venus Nails; and
(h)
a permanent injunction against
Defendants KEVIN CHUN
and CONNIE CHUN enjoining them , (1) from
removing or
destroying
any property of ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC., which has its premises
located at
the premises located at 575 Main Street, ARRIS, New York 10504,
including, but
not limited to, papers, documents, notes, books, records, checkbooks,
bank
statements, invoices, desks and other furnishings or inventory (nail
polish,
nail polish remover and various other supplies, etc.); (2)
from using any money or assets of ARRIS SPA & NAILS, INC.
for personal reasons against the interest of ARRIS SPA & NAILS,
INC.,
including, but not limited to, making payments to or on behalf of Momosono
Restaurant,
Inc., NORTH PARK Spa & Nails, Inc.;
and (3) from operating, owning, or working
in any nail salon, including, but not limited to NORTH PARK Spa & Nails Inc.,
within a geographical area
that would reasonably believed to be competing with ARRIS SPA &
NAILS,
INC.; and
(i)
other
relief, together with the above relief, that this Court issue a
judgment against all Defendants for costs, fees, attorneys’ fees, and
interest
and such other legal or equitable relief that is appropriate.
Dated:
New
York, New York
October
18, 2001
Yours, etc.,
PETER M.
AGULNICK, P.C.
By:__________________________
Peter M. Agulnick
Attorneys
for
Plaintiffs
SOPHIA HARRIS and MICHAEL YOONY
321 Broadway,
2nd Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212)
571-2266
