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 Nota~al(fi§gDi]!~~ 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