SUMMONS

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS
SULTAN AL MARUF
Plaintiff
-against-
The City of New York, The New York City
Commission of Human Rights
Defendants

Index No.

SUMMONS

P E R S O N S:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer on Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (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 annexed complaint.
Venue is proper in Queens County pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §503(c) because Plaintiff’s
residence and businesses are located within the State of New York, County of Queens.

Dated: City of Queens, New York By:


Sultan Maruf
3605 29 th Street, Apt E9,
Long Island City, NY 11106
Phone: 929-451-2152
Email:
SULTANMARUF@GMAIL.COM

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS
SULTAN AL MARUF
Plaintiff
-against-
The City of New York, The New York City
Commission of Human Rights
Defendants

Index No.

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMANDED

NATURE OF ACTION

  1. In this action, Plaintiff, Sultan Maruf, is filing a Complaint against Defendants
    City of New York and New York City Commission of Human Rights (“the NYC Commission of
    Human Rights ”), on the basis of the underlying grounds.
  2. This Complaint arises from the discrimination and harassment that Plaintiff faced.
    Plaintiff, being of Bangladesh origin, was subjected to discriminatory comments from his
    landlord’s manager, who harassed Plaintiff by stating, in reference to Plaintiff, that
    “Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani people brought bedbugs in this county.”
  3. Plaintiff consequently filed a Complaint at the NYC Commission of Human
    Rights’ office. However, employees of the NYC Commission of Human Rights intentionally
    and/or negligently delayed to prosecute Plaintiff’s case amidst Plaintiff’s incessant emails,
    expressing his concerns for the delay. [Exhibit- Emails, pp. 1-2].
  4. Plaintiff therefore files this case against the Defendant for negligently and/or
    intentionally delayed Plaintiff’s case; pushed for settlement contrary to Plaintiff’s intention; and
    dropped the case when Plaintiff refused to accept the settlement offer.
    JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  5. Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 301 and/or §
    302, this Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they are residents of and/or authorized
    to do business in New York State.
  6. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to CPLR § 503, as Plaintiff resides in
    New York County.

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, Sultan Maruf, is a resident of Queens County.
  2. At all times mentioned, Defendant City of New York, was and is a municipal
    corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
  3. Upon information and belief, Defendant New York City Commission of Human
    Rights (NYC CCHR) is an agency of the City of New York, and created and organized by virtue
    of the laws of the State of New York.
  4. New York City Commission of Human Rights staff/officials/employees refer to
    employees and other governmental officials who participated in the relevant facts but some
    identities and/or full names are unknown. (John and Jane Doe collectively referred to as
    “Officers” or ”Defendant(s)”). Some of them are known are directly involved:

 Katherine Carroll
 Johanna C. Segal
 Martha Perez-Pedemonti

 Charles
 Boris
 Carmelyn P. Malalis -Chair and Commissioner of NYC CCHR
 Sapna V. Raj – Deputy Commissioner of NYC CCHR

  1. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned, Defendant employees, were
    and are, officers of the Defendant City of New York, and at all times herein was acting in such
    capacity as the agent, servant, and employees of the Defendant City of New York.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  1. Plaintiff was a tenant at the EB Management Properties, LLC.
  2. On or about January 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s landlord’s manager discriminated against
    him by failing to do necessary repairs and by failing to address a bed-bug infestation in a timely
    manner because of his actual or perceived national origin in violation of § 8-107(5) of the
    Administrative Code of the City of New York. The said manager also threatened and intimidated
    Plaintiff in his place of residence because of his nation origin in violation of Title 8 of the
    Administrative Code of the City of New York. Notably, the recording that lasted about 15
    minutes and 48 seconds showed the manager’s statement to wit, “Bangladeshi, Indian, and
    Pakistani people brought bedbugs in this country.”
  3. On or about January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint at the NYC Commission
    of Human Rights.
  4. On or about March 12, 2019, Katherine Carroll of the NYC Commission of
    Human Rights issued a Notice of Probable Cause Determination and of Intent to Proceed to
    Public Hearing. The notice was issued pursuant to Plaintiff’s claim(s) of discriminatory practice

where the EB Management Properties LLC. refused to make repairs and to address a bed bug
infestation because of Plaintiff’s origin. It is worth noting that it took the NYC Commission of
Human Rights 798 days (2 years, 2 months, and 9 days) to issue a probable cause letter whereas
the audio recording length was only 15 minutes and 48 seconds long. [Exhibit- Probable Cause
Letter].

  1. After the said Notice, the NYC Commission of Human Rights failed to provide
    any further communication about the next step. On or about July 8, 2019, Plaintiff wrote the said
    Defendant an email expressing his concerns that he had not received any public hearing date,
    location, and time concerning the issue. [Exhibit- Emails, pp. 6-7].
  2. On or about July 19, 2019, the said Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s email. In
    the said response, the NYC Commission of Human Rights informed Plaintiff that the next step in
    his case was to schedule a settlement conference. [Exhibit- Emails, p. 6].
  3. On or about July 27, 2019, Plaintiff responded to the said Defendant and
    expressed his intent to file a suit and not to go for settlement. [Exhibit- Emails, p. 5]. Defendant
    failed to respond to the said response from Plaintiff, which prompted a further email from
    Plaintiff expressing his frustrations for the lack of attention to his matter. [Exhibit- Emails, pp.
    4- 5].
  4. On or about August 29, 2019, Katherine Carroll responded to Plaintiff’s emails
    and informed Plaintiff that the reason for the delayed response is that the Defendant was waiting
    for an attorney to take over the case. [Exhibit- Emails, p. 4].
  5. On or about December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an official complaint to the
    Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, alleging the dilatory conduct of the NYC Commission
    of Human Rights’ staff, who handled Plaintiff’s case. [Exhibit- Emails, pp. 1- 2].
  6. It is worth noting that the dilatory conduct of the Defendant was being done while
    they had already issued a Notice of Probable Cause, and assigned a contact to handle the case.
    Besides, the Plaintiff had already issued them three settlement dates. [Exhibit- Emails, p. 3].
  7. On or about April 22, 2020, the NYC Commission of Human Rights referred the
    Plaintiff’s complaint to the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
  8. On or about May 15, 2020, Plaintiff attended a mandatory pre-trial settlement
    conference, where Katherine Carroll proposed to the judge that the Plaintiff accepts $5000 from
    the landlord in settlement of the case; and that if Plaintiff would not accept the case, the NYC
    Commission of Human Rights would drop the case.
  9. On or about October 8, 2020, in the vicinity of their office, County of New York,
    City, and State of New York, the Defendants jointly and severally in their capacity of officers,
    committed retaliatory actions upon Plaintiff.
  10. On the above-mentioned date, Johanna C. Segal, Esq., while on duty as an Officer
    for Agency Attorney of Law Enforcement Bureau (LEB), New York City Commission on
    Human Rights, 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007, -issued a closure letter at the Plaintiffs
    for administrative cause after tormenting plaintiff for about 1394 days (3 years 9 months and 5
    days). [Exhibit- Closure Letter].
  11. Plaintiff filed a claim at the NYC office of the Comptroller against the NYC
    Commission of Human Rights alleging psychological and emotional damage that he underwent
    incidental and consequential to the said Defendant’s actions and/or inactions. [Exhibit- Personal
    Injury Claim Form].
  12. Pursuant to CPLR Section 1602(2)(iv), Defendants are jointly and severally liable
    for all of the Plaintiffs’ damages, including but not limited to Plaintiff non-economic loss.
  13. The oral examination of Plaintiff has been conducted in compliance with Section
    50-H of the General Municipal Law.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Due Process Rights

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Justice delayed is justice denied. Plaintiff was entitled to a timely prosecution of
    the case.
  3. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights as already alleged in Count 1
    above. Notably, Plaintiff’s Complaint was lodged January 3, 2017, and a probable cause letter
    was issued March 12, 2019. It took the NYC Commission of Human Rights 798 days (2 years, 2
    months, and 9 days) to issue a probable cause letter whereas the audio recording length was only
    15 minutes and 48 seconds long. Any reasonable person would conclude within a few minutes
    that (recorded conversation) landlord’s remarks were racist and degrading to the Bangladeshi,
    Indian, and Pakistani communities.
  4. Besides, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner never answered or responded
    to the plaintiff’s complaints about their employees.
  5. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered incidental,
    and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and emotional
    distress.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
New York State Human Rights Law § 296 (7)

Retaliation

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. New York City Commission on Human Rights’ employees went on vengeance
    rampant against Plaintiff due to his complaint against employees. Besides, Commissioner and
    Deputy Commissioner never answered or responded to the plaintiff’s complaints about their
    employees.
  3. It appears that Commissioner and deputy commissioner’s inaction emboldened
    employees to take retaliatory actions.
  4. While tormenting the plaintiff for about 3 years and 10 months, the employees
    assessed a $5,000 settlement from the landlord as reasonable while the plaintiff always wanted a
    court issue justice that would restore the reputation and dignity of his communities, race, and
    nationality and never accepted any amount of money. Therefore, New York City Commission on
    Human Rights engaged in professional misconduct through harassment and coercion, such as,
    not replying to emails, stonewalling process, not replying to phone calls, and constantly coercing
    to accept the $5000 settlement.
  5. Furthermore, Katherine Carroll showed up at the pre-trial settlement conference
    held on May 15, 2020 and took over the proceeding. She stated that the commission may not
    take it to the court. This appeared vengeful, and was beyond the conflict of interest since she
    was mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint letter to the commission. The case was already being
    handled by another employee (Johanna C. Segal) and her supervisor, but Katherine Caroll
    interfered in the settlement conference and determined the decision of the commission.
  6. Furthermore, the determination letter falsely claimed,
    “The Law Enforcement Bureau is closing your case for administrative cause.
    The Law Enforcement Bureau in its discretion may close cases for
    “administrative cause” when it declines to complete its investigation for
    reasons described in the City Human Rights Law at § 8-113(a) of the
    Administrative Code of the City of New York.”
  7. Plaintiff avers that they already completed the investigation and issued the
    probable cause letter [Exhibit- Probable Cause Letter]. Probable cause letters are issued when
    they complete the investigation and are in the process of taking the case to trial. Furthermore,
    every human being will conclude after listening plaintiff’s recorded conversation with the
    landlord that it was discriminatory.
  8. After issuing the ‘Probable Cause’ letter, New York City Commission on Human
    Rights’ employees covered up the probable cause letter and again engaged in stonewalling the
    case by transferring the case to another person. . [Exhibit- Emails, p. 4].
  9. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered incidental,
    and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and emotional
    distress.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NYC § 8-113.
Abuse of Discretion

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. The New York City Commission on Human Rights dismissed the Complaint in
    violation of the aforementioned law.
  3. Plaintiff avers that there was no good cause to dismiss the Complaint. Notably,
    the said Defendant had the ability to locate the Plaintiff at all times; the Plaintiff has never failed
    to appear at any scheduled meeting with the said Defendant; the Plaintiff has not engaged in any
    conduct which is disruptive to the orderly functioning of the commission; the Defendant pushed
    for a settlement contrary to Plaintiff’s wishes; and prosecution of the case would serve public
    interest.
  4. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered incidental,
    and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and emotional
    distress.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
New York Charter § 1116 and § 1118

Fraud; neglect of duty; willful violation of law relative to office.

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. The New York City Commission on Human Rights’ employees willfully violated
    laws relating to such employees’ office.
  3. Katherine Carroll also violated the said law by knowingly making a false or
    deceptive report or statement in the course of duty. Notably, she sent Plaintiff the Notice of
    Probable Cause yet knowing that they would still delay on the investigation, and prolong the said
    investigation to years.
  4. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered incidental,
    and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and emotional
    distress.
  5. Further, the said Katherine Carroll also violated the said law by interfering with
    the investigation of Plaintiff’s case. She pushed for settlement of the case yet Plaintiff had a
    meritorious claim that would have been subjected to a court verdict in the interest of justice.
  6. On or about October 8, 2020, date, Johanna C. Segal, Esq., issued a closure letter
    thus dismissing Plaintiff’s claim completely.
  7. All the aforesaid conduct(s) amounted to a neglect of duty and violation of law
    related to the office of the employees.
  8. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered
    incidental, and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and
    emotional distress.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. The conduct of the Defendants, as set forth above, was extreme, and outrageous.
  3. Defendants ought to have reasonably known that their actions and/or inactions
    would cause severe harm on Plaintiff.
  4. The Defendants filed to consider the adverse effects of their actions and/or
    inactions on Plaintiff. Notably, they failed to acknowledge the fact that such conduct would lead
    Plaintiff into bankruptcy, and would make Plaintiff incur unprecedented costs.
  5. As a result of Defendants’ actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered incidental,
    and consequential damages. Plaintiff had to undergo treatment for psychological and emotional
    distress.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the
    preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. There now exists, between the parties hereto, a dispute and controversy to which
    the Plaintiff and the Defendants are entitled to have a declaration of their rights and further relief
    relating to the facts and circumstances as set forth in this action.
  3. Plaintiff respectfully request this Honorable Court issue a declaratory judgment
    declaring that the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violate the rights of Plaintiff, and
    issue appropriate remedies thereof.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and he hereby
prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants as follows:
Complainant seeks the following remedies:
i. That the Court orders compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the
Court for the Defendants’ conduct alleged herein; and for Plaintiff’s medical costs.
ii. That the Court grants Declaratory Order against Defendants for their actions and/or
inactions alleged herein.
iii. Interest as provided by law;
iv. An award of fees and costs;
v. That the Court issues any other order that this institution deems just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.

Dated:


SULTAN AL MARUF

Pro see

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )