Landlord Abraham Sanieoff VS Alice Bahar

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2019 02:44 PM INDEX NO.
150328/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ALICE BAHAR, :
: Index No. 150328/2018
Plaintiff, :
:
-against- : VERIFIED COMPLAINT
:
ABRAHAM SANIEOFF; SANI GROUP a/k/a 25 :
GROVE STREET LLC; CHARLET SANIEOFF; ELIZA :
SABETFARD; LEOR SABETFARD; and MATTHEW
:
SABETFARD,
Defendants. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff, ALICE BAHAR, individually through her attorneys, NEIL L. POSTRYGACZ,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., complaining of Defendants, ABRAHAM SANIEOFF, SANI
GROUP a/k/a 25 GROVE STREET LLC, CHARLET SANIEOFF, ELIZA SABETFARD, LEOR
SABETFARD, and MATTHEW SABETFARD, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. While all humans are fallible, this action arises out of the intentional, premeditated,
and well planned predatory scheme of Defendant, ABRAHAM SANIEOFF, personally and on
behalf of SANI GROUP a/k/a 25 GROVE STREET LLC—whose negligence permitted the
actions complained of to happen—to use his power, wealth, influence, and connections to focus
on and orchestrate his plan to lure Plaintiff, a single 37-year-old hard-working real estate agent to
ostensibly be an onsite agent at 25 Grove Street, New York, New York (“25 Grove”), while his
undisclosed, real, and ulterior motive was to engage in a personal, hopefully “romantic” and
eventual intimate relationship with her, as detailed hereafter.
1 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2019 02:44 PM INDEX NO. 150328/2018
2. Worse, immediately after the exposure of Sanieoff’s infidelity, improper and
inappropriate sexual behavior and exploitation, he terminated Plaintiff’s employment, and
Sanieoff’s family, including his wife, wife’s mother, and wife’s brothers, and as admitted, New
York City police and a “Black, six-foot-four” person that weighs “319 pounds” engaged in a
systematic, well planned, illegal, and vindictive conspiracy to threaten and intimidate Plaintiff.
3. Threats were made of disfiguring Ms. Bahar, breaking her legs, and causing severe
bodily harm while going to extraordinary levels to damage her reputation, destroy her career, and
essentially destroy her life with the intent and purpose of causing her irreparable physical and
emotional injury and economic loss, and as she was warned by Defendant ELIZA SABETFARD
(“ELIZA”), Sanieoff’s mother-in-law, in a voicemail dated February 17, 2017: “You don’t know
how powerful I am.”
4. These actions constitute causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, illegal and prima facie tort, stalking, harassment
and aggravated harassment, cyberstalking, sexual discrimination of an employee under New York
Human Rights Law, sexual harassment of an independent contractor under New York Human
Rights Law, employment discrimination and retaliation, and sexual discrimination of employee
under New York City Administrative Code.
PARTIES AND VENUE
5. Plaintiff, ALICE BAHAR (hereinafter referred to as “Bahar” or “Plaintiff”), is a
resident of New York, who presently, and at all times relevant hereto, resides in the City of New
York, County and State of New York.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant ABRAHAM SANIEOFF (hereinafter
referred to “Abraham” or “Sanieoff”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, is a resident of
the Village of Great Neck, County of Nassau and State of New York.
2 of 26
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant CHARLET SANIEOFF (hereinafter
referred to “C. Sanieoff”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, is a resident of the Village of
Great Neck, County of Nassau and State of New York.
8. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s mother ELIZA SABETFARD
(hereinafter referred to as “E. Sabetfard”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, is a resident
of the Village of Great Neck, County of Nassau and State of New York.
9. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s brother LEOR SABETFARD
(hereinafter referred to as “L. Sabetfard”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, and is a
resident of the City of New York, County and State of New York.
10. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s brother MATTHEW SABETFARD
(hereinafter referred to as “M. Sabetfard”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, is a resident
of the Village of Great Neck, County of Nassau and State of New York.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant SANI GROUP a/k/a 25 GROVE STREET
LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Sani Group”), presently and at all times relevant hereto, is a
corporation doing business in the State of New York, which, among other things, owned property
located at 25 Grove Street, New York, New York, and has an office at 38 West 31st Street, Suite
3, New York, New York 10001.
12. Venue is proper in New York County, as all events recited herein occurred in New
York County, where Plaintiff resides and works.
OVERVIEW
13. Plaintiff has had her New York real estate license since 2012. She has been working
as a licensed agent with Bond New York Properties, LLC (“Bond”) since 2013.
14. Bahar worked on both open listings and maintained exclusive listings with several
landlords in the West Village, New York. It is very rare to obtain exclusives, and is considered a
big deal when such an agreement is given.
3 of 26
15. Plaintiff met Sanieoff on May 18, 2016.
16. Sanieoff is the owner and Managing Member of 25 Grove Street LLC, which owns
the building located at 25 Grove Street, New York, New York (“25 Grove”).
FACTS
17. Sanieoff had been looking for an agent to list Apartment #5 at 25 Grove. Zuko,
Sanieoff’s super at 25 Grove, set up a meeting between Sanieoff and Plaintiff on May 18, 2016
about the possibility of signing her as his broker.
18. At their meeting, Sanieoff showed Plaintiff Apartment #5, and after talking for
about five minutes, he hired her and signed the first exclusive agreement for Plaintiff to be the
exclusive broker on Apartment #5 for the period between May 18, 2016 and June 18, 2016. As a
result, she began working for him as an independent contractor, with Sanieoff, the principal, and
Managing Member of, the Sani Group and/or 25 Grove Street LLC, as her boss.
19. On May 19, 2016, Bahar and a photographer went to 25 Grove to take pictures of
Apartment #5, and she listed the apartment online that same day.
20. A client contacted Bahar to see Apartment #5, and she showed the apartment on
May 20, 2016. Bahar hosted additional open houses from May 21 to 23, 2016.
21. In addition to hosting open houses, Bahar received numerous emails and
communicated with clients constantly in order to secure a lease for the apartment.
22. After just 2 days, on May 21, 2016, Bahar received an application for Apartment
#5.
23. Sanieoff required Bahar to meet him in person to go over any applications for his
apartments and any other paperwork.
24. Plaintiff met Sanieoff at the Starbucks on 7th Avenue and Grove Street on May 23,
2016 to go over the application for Apartment #5, though she never had to meet with a landlord in
person to go over an applications before, and believed this requirement to be unusual.
4 of 26
25. Sanieoff also required Plaintiff to meet with him in person to go over the lease, later
that same day on May 23rd.
26. Sanieoff approved the application on or about May 23, 2016, and the tenants signed
Apartment #5’s lease on or about May 31 at or about 7 p.m. in Bahar’s office.
27. During the period of this first exclusive, Sanieoff texted Plaintiff many times and
praised her for her hard work.
28. Sanieoff was satisfied with Bahar’s work and told her on May 24, 2016 that he
cannot wait to work with her on the next apartment—which happened to be Apartment #6. Bahar
showed this unit on May 25th, and tendered the tenant’s application and leased the unit on May
26th, in a turnaround so quick that it was not listed online.
29. Bahar worked hard for each apartment she received an exclusive agreement for,
including, but not limited to, Apartment #s 12, 7, 4, 19, and 5 (re-listing) at 25 Grove, as well as
her other exclusives in other buildings.
30. In addition to the aforementioned Apartments, Bahar also rented Apartment #’s 8,
2, and 11 at 25 Grove.
31. Slowly, Sanieoff started getting close to Plaintiff, wanting to spend more time with
her. Due to the fact that Sanieoff required that Bahar meet him in person every time she had an
application for an apartment, he often asked her to meet in one of the empty apartments in 25
Grove.
32. When she asked if she could email him the application to lease an apartment from
a potential renter, as is usually done, his response was “This is not how I work,” requiring her to
meet him in person each time. This prevented Bahar from spending time to develop business
contacts with other landlords to secure more exclusives, and lease the exclusives she already had
at other buildings, so she could earn more money by way of other landlords, as she was constantly
meeting with Sanieoff under his in-person policy.
5 of 26
33. From the outset, Sanieoff engaged in a pattern of sexual banter, flirtation, innuendo,
comments, jokes, requests, and other forms of inappropriate behavior, creating a polluted and
hostile work atmosphere.
34. Sanieoff came by 25 Grove when he knew Bahar would be working, often waiting
around for her to finish with showing an apartment to spend time with her.
35. Sanieoff incessantly offered to take Bahar out for coffee, and questioned every time
when she declined.
36. When Plaintiff was showing exclusives in other buildings, Sanieoff would
sometimes escort her there, and wait while she met with clients. She found this behavior odd.
37. Plaintiff was aware of the fact that Sanieoff had the authority to either stop giving
her future exclusive agreements or even fire her if she did not comply with his invitations. As
Sanieoff was in the process of renovating many units at 25 Grove and more were becoming
available every month to lease out, he also constantly talked about purchasing another building,
and asked Bahar for her opinion on the new building and the apartments in 25 Grove, Plaintiff
knew and understood that there was a lot of employment potential with Sanieoff.
38. Eventually, Plaintiff gave in to Sanieoff’s invitation when he offered to buy her a
smoothie, having run out of excuses to decline. Sanieoff continued to walk with Plaintiff to her
office upon purchasing the smoothie, though he had no reason to go in the direction of her office.
39. Sanieoff took the smoothie acceptance as the gateway to invite Plaintiff to lunch
and other meetups that went beyond the scope of a typical lease application discussion.
40. Sanieoff started calling and texting Plaintiff late at night because he was aware that
she was single and alone, working hard to pay her bills, and was potentially vulnerable to being
taken advantage of.
41. Toward the end of June 2016, Plaintiff and Sanieoff met at Starbucks to discuss
lease application documents, upcoming apartment showings, and renovations at 25 Grove. At this
6 of 26
point, Plaintiff had been working for Sanieoff for a little longer than one (1) month. At this work-
related meeting, and out of nowhere, Sanieoff gave Plaintiff an extremely inappropriate gift from
an adult entertainment store, the nature of which is not appropriate to state herein.
42. In July 2016, Sanieoff offered Plaintiff Johnny Walker Blue whiskey inside
Apartment #2, the apartment that Sanieoff refused to rent out and used as his “man cave,” for the
purpose of getting her tipsy so he could induce her into having sex with him.
43. Essentially, while giving Plaintiff the exclusive agreements, he expected sexual
favors in return. On a few occasions, he stopped by open houses she was holding on Sunday, and
started touching and caressing Plaintiff and asked her to touch…… but Plaintiff refused. This
happened in Apartment #4 before they had any personal contact.
44. Sanieoff was sending text messages nonstop every single day from 7 a.m. to 10
p.m., and even in the middle of the night, in spite of the fact that Plaintiff was pleading with him
to leave her alone and saying that the only thing she wanted was to do her job and make a living.
45. In response, Plaintiff kept telling Sanieoff to go be with his family.
46. Further, among the subjects discussed with Plaintiff were Sanieoff’s home, family,
relatives, tenants, and strategies concerning the same, activities in other states, including, but not
limited to, Boston, and other matters, the nature of which is best not revealed and/or disclosed in
a public filing. This went above and beyond the scope necessary for an employer-employee
relationship.
47. Sanieoff gave Plaintiff small jewelry gifts for the December 2016 holidays, though
Plaintiff refused to accept them and told him to return them. He reasoned that they were in
appreciation for all the work she did at 25 Grove.
48. Sanieoff bought a second building, 601 Hudson Street, New York, New York (“601
Hudson”), on or about April 20, 2017. Before the purchase was finalized in months prior, he took
Plaintiff in or around December 2016 to the building to view it and asked for her opinion on floor
7 of 26
plans. He told her that the commercial space in the building would be his office and that he wanted
her to get a broker’s license and work exclusively with him there, instead of working at her real
estate agency. He also informed the prior owner that he had a broker (Plaintiff) to lease the units,
and would not need the prior owner’s broker—who had a listing up at the time.
49. Sanieoff had requested Plaintiff to find comparable units to the ones at 601 Hudson
as research for how to price them and renovate them. One such comparison in or about January
2017 that she gave him was for a four-bedroom unit for about $9,000 at 400 Bleecker Street, New
York, New York.
50. On or about Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2017, Sanieoff gave Plaintiff a bracelet.
51. On or about February 15, 2017, Sanieoff asked Plaintiff to find comparisons in the
West Village for similar commercial units to the one at 601 Hudson, so he could renovate and
price it accordingly. Plaintiff printed comparisons for him.
52. Before and through this date, Plaintiff had been a hard worker and achieved every
goal and assignment she had to complete for Sanieoff as his exclusive broker. No one else had
worked for Sanieoff and Sani Group to lease units during the time that Plaintiff worked with
Sanieoff.
53. Plaintiff went above and beyond her real estate duties as the exclusive broker on 25
Grove units to ensure Sanieoff was satisfied with her work; in addition to the typical broker duties,
which include listing apartments, communicating with potential clients, showing apartments,
collecting and reviewing applications, preparing and orchestrating lease signing, and turning over
the keys, she additionally visited 601 Hudson with Sanieoff, toured each unit individually, and
found comparisons for units, among other things—all of which went beyond her scope as an agent.
54. Meanwhile, Defendant C. Sanieoff had hired a private investigator to follow
Sanieoff, her husband. She discovered Sanieoff’s activities in February 2017, and told Sanieoff of
her findings.
8 of 26
55. On February 17, 2017, at or about 1:37 p.m. EST, Sanieoff left Plaintiff a voicemail,
terminating her employment. The first twenty-four seconds of the voicemail played the following:
Hi Alice. This is Abe. Um. I can’t work with you anymore. I can’t
see you anymore. Can’t talk with you anymore. My wife knows
everything, and she has a private investigator that was following us.
Um. That’s it. You’re fired from Grove. We can’t work together
on anything anymore.
(emphasis added).
56. As a direct result of Sanieoff’s inability to have a personal relationship with
Plaintiff due to his wife’s findings, he terminated Plaintiff’s employment that very same day
because she could no longer be used as an object of his sexual desires, despite her impeccable
work performance at 25 Grove and help with 601 Hudson.
57. Plaintiff was denied employment, career opportunities, exclusivity rights to future
apartments, including 601 Hudson, and other benefits that other similarly situated brokers would
be afforded by landlords based on their performance, due to Sanieoff’s sexual discrimination and
harassment of Plaintiff.
58. Not only did Plaintiff lose her job without merit, but C. Sanieoff began threatening
Plaintiff with both voicemails and text messages, beginning with the second half of Sanieoff’s
February 17, 2017, 1:37 p.m. recording.
59. C. Sanieoff was in earshot of the voicemail recording when Sanieoff terminated
Plaintiff’s employment, and approximately twenty-five seconds into the recording, she threatened
Plaintiff.
60. Immediately after hearing this voicemail, on February 17, 2017, Plaintiff took down
the active re-listing for Apartment #5 at 25 Grove, for which she had been instructed to relist on
January 26, 2017 by Sanieoff.
61. The phone calls and text messages from C. Sanieoff and her mother, Defendant E.
Sabetfard, to Plaintiff were frequent and incessant. C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard were so nefarious
9 of 26
in their recordings that Plaintiff was afraid to leave her apartment. Phone calls with serious threats
started on February 17, 2017, and text messages of the same nature began on February 18, 2017.
62. E. Sabetfard, C. Sanieoff’s mother, left Plaintiff at least ten (10) voicemails over
the course of a two-and-a-half-week period.
63. In these messages, E. Sabetfard boasted of her power and threatened Bahar’s well-
being.
64. On February 18, 2017, Plaintiff received a text message from C. Sanieoff, wherein
she states her numerous affiliations with NYPD officers who owe her a favor. She also warns of
so many people watching Bahar 24 hours a day.
65. These voicemails and text messages were full of vile threats and insults and were
intended to terrorize, intimidate and harass Plaintiff.
66. Plaintiff was unable to sleep, eat, work, or do anything normal anymore, upon
receiving threat after threat after threat. Plaintiff’s life was changed immediately and drastically.
67. Plaintiff took every word C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard said very seriously and she
is still afraid; she has nightmares and cannot sleep at night because of her threats.
68. In addition to the threatening voice and text messages, C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard
interfered with Plaintiff’s job by harassing her supervisors and pretending to be clients; L.
Sabetfard and M. Sabetfard followed Plaintiff; C. Sanieoff hired a private investigator to watch
and record Plaintiff; C. Sanieoff also hired a threatening African-American of husky build to
intimidate and harm Plaintiff, as was threatened in the February 20, 2017, 9:06 a.m. voicemail;
and Sanieoff admitted to Plaintiff’s real estate agency that he had a business and personal
relationship with her, in order to endanger her job. All of these actions were done while Plaintiff
had an effective order of protection against C. Sanieoff, who spearheaded this campaign against
Plaintiff.
10
10 of 26
69. Plaintiff filed a police report on February 18, 2017 and C. Sanieoff was arrested in
March 2017. Plaintiff obtained her first order of protection against C. Sanieoff in April 2017, in
effect until July 12, 2017.
70. C. Sanieoff stated in one of her voicemails that Plaintiff “will never have another
listing” as most of the landlords live in Great Neck and they all know each other. Defendants’ plan
was to spread rumors about Plaintiff, so she would lose the opportunity to make a living.
71. C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard were calling Plaintiff’s managers approximately
twenty (20) times a day in February and March 2017, bothering them and complaining in order to
get Plaintiff fired.
72. On or about March 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s manager called Plaintiff and asked her to
come to the office the next day at 8:30 a.m. so they could talk.
73. Plaintiff’s manager decided to give Plaintiff another chance if the phone calls
stopped. Defendants embarrassed Plaintiff so she could not show her face at work.
74. Moreover, E. Sabetfard was sending Plaintiff emails pretending to be a client who
wanted to see an apartment; she was emailing Plaintiff from fake email accounts and texting and
calling Plaintiff from fake numbers, as will be revealed in the course of discovery.
75. Defendants were trying to do everything possible for Plaintiff not to work so she
would not be able to pay her bills and be forced to leave New York and return to her home country
of Israel, as E. Sabetfard alluded to in one of her many voicemails.
76. Moreover, C. Sanieoff sent her brothers L. Sabetfard and M. Sabetfard to follow
Plaintiff everywhere by foot or by car, especially in her neighborhood, monitor her activities, and
intimidate her so Plaintiff could not leave her apartment or go to work. Plaintiff saw them circling
around her all the time.
77. Every time that Plaintiff left her apartment, she could see C. Sanieoff’s brothers
circling around Plaintiff.
11
11 of 26
78. L. Sabetfard and M. Sabetfard knew Plaintiff’s route in the morning, as she would
leave her apartment and walk by Starbucks on W 10th Street and Hudson Street to go to her office.
79. On March 3, 2017 at or about 9:30 a.m., L. Sabetfard started following Plaintiff,
who was right next to Starbucks. This Starbucks is across the street from the New York City Police
Department – 6th Precinct station at 233 W 10th Street, New York, New York. Plaintiff got scared
when she saw L. Sabetfard right behind her and decided to cross the street and stand in front of the
police station until he walked away.
80. L. Sabetfard walked to the corned and then looked back to see if Plaintiff was still
there, but she was hiding behind a car, so he did not see her.
81. That same morning, when Plaintiff finally went to the office at or about 10:30 a.m.,
she called the police to tell them that C. Sanieoff’s brothers were following her.
82. The police station has cameras and were able to record Plaintiff hiding from L.
Sabetfard, and they could see him walking behind her.
83. Further, C. Sanieoff was sending private investigators to follow and watch Plaintiff
all the time when Plaintiff left her apartment.
84. C. Sanieoff had said that she had numerous NYPD officers, whom all owed her
favors, and private investigators working for her, in her communications to Plaintiff.
85. C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard sent Jerry Breen (“Breen”), a private investigator, to
approach Plaintiff on June 4 and July 11, 2017, in spite of Plaintiff having an order of protection.
86. Jerry Breen was sent to make conversation with Plaintiff, pretending to be friendly
and get to know Plaintiff so C. Sanieoff could obtain personal information about Plaintiff.
87. Breen wanted to know if Plaintiff lived in her apartment without her parents, where
she liked to go out, and whether she worked from home or went to the office.
88. Breen offered Plaintiff to have a drink, all while recording everything that she said.
12
12 of 26
89. Plaintiff received texts about a week later from E. Sabetfard pretending to be “John”
with information that she only gave to Breen. Because of this, Plaintiff knew that she was being
recorded during her conversation with Breen.
90. Later, Breen started telling Plaintiff repeatedly “I want to kiss you, I don’t want to
fuck you… You like to have fun, right?... What kind of fun, drugs? … I’m looking at your breast!”
He was repeating that on purpose to get Plaintiff’s reaction and make her feel like that was all that
she was good for, as he was directed to do by Defendants.
91. Breen was trying to put words in Plaintiff’s mouth. He was on a mission to make
her look bad, cheap, dirty, and a whore so Defendants could spread rumors about her and destroy
Plaintiff’s reputation, so nobody would deal with Plaintiff in her personal or professional life.
92. On July 12, 2017, upon the expiration of her first protective order, and the day after
Breen approached Plaintiff for the second time, Plaintiff obtained another temporary order of
protection, valid until January 11, 2018.
93. In addition, on or about September 1, 2017 at or about 11:45 a.m., Plaintiff observed
a stranger—African-American with a husky build—sitting in front of her building, monitoring
who was coming in and out, just as C. Sanieoff had threatened in her February 20, 2017, 9:06 a.m.
voicemail. Plaintiff has lived in the same apartment for ten (10) years and nobody had ever done
that before, except for Defendants. Plaintiff has a picture of this stranger sitting in front of her
building from this date and time.
94. On or about September 14, 2017, Plaintiff’s real estate agency, Bond, received a
letter from Sanieoff’s counsel admitting that Sanieoff was in a professional and personal
relationship with Plaintiff, and that upon his termination of both personal and business
relationships, she engaged in retaliatory tactics to embarrass him in front of his family. This letter
was written and sent in an effort to turn the tables against Plaintiff about who was harassing whom,
13
13 of 26
put her in trouble at her job, and make her lose her job so she would not have the opportunity to
make a living.
95. As the voicemail from February 17, 2017, 1:37 p.m. shows, Sanieoff terminated his
business and personal relationship simultaneously in the same twenty-four-second period, and
instantly, his wife C. Sanieoff chimed in and threatened Plaintiff. The harassment began here by
Defendants.
96. During the course that these harassing events were taking place, Plaintiff filed
police reports after C. Sanieoff was arrested and Plaintiff contacted the District Attorney many
times due to Defendants’ violation of the order of protection. However, upon information and
belief, nobody cared or wanted to help Plaintiff because of Defendants’ power, wealth, and
influence, all of which is being investigated as, upon information and belief, improper influence
was exerted.
97. The whole Defendant family worked extremely hard to destroy Plaintiff’s life and
her reputation.
98. All of Defendants’ actions changed Plaintiff’s life completely. First, Sanieoff took
advantage of Plaintiff, and then, the rest of the family attacked Plaintiff like an animal.
99. Plaintiff is still having a very hard time as she cannot go back to her normal life and
is undergoing treatment, which is expected to last at least one (1) year or more.
100. Plaintiff always watches her back when she walks around because she is afraid.
101. Plaintiff goes to a therapist to try to heal, but it will take a long time.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
102. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through
101 above, as fully set forth herein.
14
14 of 26
103. As detailed herein, Defendants jointly and severally have engaged in (i) extreme
and outrageous conduct; with the (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of
causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) and there is a causal connection between the conduct and
injury; and there has been (iv) severe emotional distress.
104. Defendants have intentionally and recklessly engaged in the extreme and
outrageous conduct described above for the sole purpose of causing severe emotional distress and
harm.
105. By engaging and continuing to engage in the actions and conduct described above,
Defendants’ have caused significant harm, including extreme emotional distress and anxiety to
Plaintiff.
106. As a result of said emotional distress that has been caused by Defendants, Plaintiff,
for the first time, has been forced to undergo psychiatric treatment and has been prescribed a litany
of anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications simply so that she can function in her day-to-day
life.
107. Nevertheless, even with the medical treatment and medications, Plaintiff has been
unable to resume her normal life free from extreme emotional distress and anxiety, which she
enjoyed prior to the Defendants’ intentionally engaging in a malicious campaign of extreme and
outrageous harassment, lies, and intimidation against her, as described above.
108. At all times described herein, Defendants were aware of the harm and severe
emotional distress that their actions were causing Plaintiff and yet, they continued to engage in the
conduct described above without any justification based in law or any bounds of decency, simply
because they have the wealth and power to do so without any perceived repercussions—even
violating orders or protection with impunity, which is being investigated.
109. Plaintiff also continues to suffer from extreme emotional distress and anxiety as a
direct result of Defendants’ intentional conduct, as described above.
15
15 of 26
110. Furthermore, Plaintiff continues to fear for her safety, which only serves to add to
and heighten the emotional distress and anxiety from which she is suffering, as a direct result of
being constantly watched and stalked by Defendants and their private security detail.
111. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and
punitive damages for the harm she has suffered and continues to suffer as a direct result of
Defendants’ intentional and ongoing actions described above, the remedy of which shall be
determined as trial, but in no event, should be less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
113. As described above, Defendants’ conduct jointly and severally and actions directed
towards Plaintiff created an unreasonable risk of causing Plaintiff emotional distress.
114. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of the emotional distress they were
causing Plaintiff and the fact that she was suffering from severe depression and anxiety as a result.
Nevertheless, Defendants, hired private security to follow and harass the Plaintiff, all of which has
been described above. They also engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct described above,
including the threatening text and voice messages..
115. Plaintiff feared and continues to fear for her safety as a result of being followed and
harassed by Defendants and Defendants’ private security, which only serves to cause her additional
emotional distress.
116. Based on all of the above described circumstances, Defendants’ conduct of
harassment and having the Plaintiff followed by Senioff’s private security created an unreasonable
risk of causing her severe emotional distress and anxiety.
16
16 of 26
117. As has been described above, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s emotional state
as a result of all of their actions and conduct so that it was clearly foreseeable that having Plaintiff
followed and/or harassed by Defendants and a private security would cause her greater emotional
distress.
118. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, has caused Plaintiff to fear for her safety
and wellbeing, which has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
119. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and
punitive damages for the harm she has suffered and continues to suffer as a direct result of
Defendants’ actions described above, the remedy of which shall be determined at trial, but in no
event should be less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Prima Facie Tort)
121. Defendants jointly and severally engaged in those acts detailed above, and as will
be revealed in the course of discovery for the purpose of intentionally inflicting harm, to
Defendants without excuse or justification by and through a series of acts, that, in this case were
not even lawful even if they believed their acts to be lawful.
122. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Stalking)
17
17 of 26
124. Defendants jointly and severally, intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose,
engaged in a course of conduct directed at Plaintiff and knew or reasonably should have known
that such conduct was likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety,
or property of Plaintiff and cause material harm to the mental or emotional health of Plaintiff, as
such conduct consisted of telephoning or initiating communication or contact with Plaintiff, and
Defendants were aware or should have been aware that they should have ceased such actions.
125. Further, Defendants engaged in those actions complained of herein to cause
Plaintiff to reasonably fear that her employment or career would be threatened, where such conduct
consisted of appearing, telephoning, or initiating communication or contact at Plaintiff’s place of
employment or business.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment and Aggravated Harassment)
128. Defendants jointly and severally, intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose
engaged in a course of conduct which annoyed, threatened, intimidated, alarmed, and put Plaintiff
in fear of her safety.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Cyberstalking)
18
18 of 26
131. Defendants jointly and severally, intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose
engaged in a course of conduct, as detailed above, which annoyed, threatened, intimidated,
alarmed, and put Plaintiff in fear of her safety through the use of emails, text messages, and through
use of the Internet.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Discrimination Against Employee Under New York Human Rights Law)
134. Pursuant to Section 296(I) of the Executive Law, it is an unlawful discriminatory
practice for an employer, because of the sex of an individual, to discriminate against any such
individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
135. Defendants Sanieoff and Sani Group a/k/a 25 Grove have engaged in an unlawful
discriminatory practice under Section 296(I) of the State Human Rights Law by failing to promote
Plaintiff, and significantly reducing her assignments and responsibilities on the basis of her sex.
136. As a result of the foregoing unlawful discriminatory practices, Plaintiff has suffered
and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be determined, but in no event should be less
than ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment of Independent Contractor under New York Human Rights Law)
138. Pursuant to Section 296-d of the Executive Law, it is an unlawful discriminatory
practice for an employer to permit sexual harassment of non-employees in its workplace. An
19
19 of 26
employer may be held liable to a non-employee who is a contractor, subcontractor, vendor,
consultant or other person providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace or who is an
employee of such contractor, subcontractor, vendor, consultant or other person providing services
pursuant to a contract in the workplace, with respect to sexual harassment, when the employer, its
agents or supervisors knew or should have known that such non-employee was subjected to sexual
harassment in the employer’s workplace, and the employer failed to take immediate and
appropriate corrective action.
139. Defendants Sanieoff and Sani Group a/k/a 25 Grove have engaged in an unlawful
discriminatory practice under Section 296-d of the State Human Rights Law because Sanieoff, as
Plaintiff’s direct supervisor and the principal of Sani Group/owner of 25 Grove Street LLC,
sexually harassed Plaintiff during her employment as an independent contractor at 25 Grove, and
failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Employment Discrimination and Retaliation)
142. Pursuant to Section 296(7) of the Executive Law, it is unlawful discriminatory
practice for any person engaged in any activity to which this section applies, to retaliate or
discriminate against any person because she has opposed any practices forbidden under this Article
or because she has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this Article.
143. Defendant Sanieoff and Sani Group a/k/a 25 Grove have engaged in unlawful
discriminatory practice under Section 296(7) of the Human Rights Law by creating a hostile and
20
20 of 26
intimidating atmosphere and engaging in a pattern of harassment and intimidation subsequent to
the time that Plaintiff brought this matter to its attention.
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Discrimination Against Employee under New York City Administrative Code)
146. Pursuant to Chapters 1 through 7 of Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City
of New York, Section 8-101 et seq., it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person,
because of the sex of any individual, to discriminate against any such individual in compensation
or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or to retaliate or discriminate against any
person because she has opposed any practice forbidden under this Article or because she has filed
a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this Article.
147. As a result of the aforementioned violations of the Administrative Code, Plaintiff
seeks, in addition to other damages, punitive damages in the amount to be determined, but in no
event should be less than ten million dollars ($10 million), in accordance with Chapter 5, ¶ 8-502
of the Administrative Code.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationship)
149. As discussed above, C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard were calling Plaintiff’s
21
21 of 26
managers approximately twenty (20) times a day in February and March 2017, bothering them
and complaining in order to get Plaintiff fired.
150. Sanieoff had his counsel send a letter to Bond admitting that Sanieoff was in a
professional and personal relationship with Plaintiff, and that upon his termination of both
personal and business relationships, she engaged in retaliatory tactics to embarrass him in front
of his family.
151. This letter was written and sent in an effort to turn the tables against Plaintiff
about who was harassing whom, put her in trouble at her job, and make her lose her job so she
would not have the opportunity to make a living.
152. Defendants knew of Bahar’s contract with Bond and intentionally interfered with
same, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
155. As discussed above, C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard were calling Plaintiff’s
managers approximately twenty (20) times a day in February and March 2017, bothering them and
complaining in order to get Plaintiff fired.
156. Sanieoff had his counsel send a letter to Bond admitting that Sanieoff was in a
professional and personal relationship with Plaintiff, and that upon his termination of both personal
and business relationships, she engaged in retaliatory tactics to embarrass him in front of his
family.
157. This letter was written and sent in an effort to turn the tables against Plaintiff
22
22 of 26
about who was harassing whom, put her in trouble at her job, and make her lose her job so she
would not have the opportunity to make a living.
158. Defendants knew of Bahar’s relationship with Bond and intentionally,
Maliciously, and unlawfully interfered with Bahar’s business relationship with Bond, causing
Plaintiff to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants jointly and severally as
follows:
A) On the First Cause of Action, compensatory and punitive damages against
Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than
$10,000,000;
B) On the Second Cause of Action, compensatory and punitive damages against
Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than
$10,000,000;
C) On the Third Cause of Action, compensatory damages against Defendants in an
amount to be determined at trial;
D) On the Fourth Cause of Action, compensatory and punitive damages against
Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;
E) On the Fifth Cause of Action, compensatory damages against Defendants in an
F) On the Sixth Cause of Action, compensatory damages against Defendants in an
23
23 of 26
G) On the Seventh Cause of Action, compensatory damages and damages for mental
anguish, pain, and suffering against Defendants in an amount to be determined at
trial, but in no event less than $10 million;
H) On the Eighth Cause of Action, compensatory damages and damages for mental
I) On the Ninth Cause of Action, compensatory damages and damages for mental
J) On the Tenth Cause of Action, in addition to other damages, punitive damages in
the amount of $10 million;
K) On the Eleventh Cause of Action, in addition to other damages, punitive damages
in the amount of $10 million;
L) On the Twelfth Cause of Action, in addition to other damages, punitive damages in
the amount of $10 million;
M) All claims, costs, fees and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred
by Plaintiff in this action;
N) Punitive damages on all causes of action;
O) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper;
P) Expedited Discovery including electronic discovery of all Defendants’ cell phones,
computers, phone records, board of director meetings for the Sani Group, insurance
policies, prior incident reports, phone records, payments to private detectives and
New York City police officers, and the six-foot-four person referenced in the
previously cited voicemail, and the personal and corporate tax returns of all
Defendants for two years, subject to a confidentiality and protective order.
24
24 of 26
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues and claims so triable.
Dated: New York, New York

January 29, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
NEIL L. POSTRYGACZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C
By: Neil L. Postrygacz

175 Varick Street
New York, New York 10014
p 212-392-4945
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TO: Joseph L. Buckley

SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS, P.C.
101 Park Avenue, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10178
Attorneys for Defendants
25
25 of 26
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK __1

)
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
ALICE BAHAR, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:
I, ALICE BAHAR, being duly sworn and deposed, state that I am the Plaintiff in this
matter I have read the above-attached papers and affirm that they are true. except those
statements that are stated uoon information and belief, which I believe to be true.
Dated: January 29. 2019

New York. New Y_orrk
Alice Bahar
Sworn to me on thi day of SM US<4
Notar/Public ANTAYA MCKENZlE

MOTARY PUGUC-STATEOF NEW
YORK
No 01MC6276531
Qualified in Kings County
My Commission Expires 02-19-2021
27
26 of 26

Landlord Abraham Sanieoff VS Alice Bahar

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Landlord Abraham Sanieoff VS Alice Bahar

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2019 02:44 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, ALICE BAHAR, individually through her attorneys, NEIL L. POSTRYGACZ,

ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., complaining of Defendants, ABRAHAM SANIEOFF, SANI

SABETFARD, and MATTHEW SABETFARD, alleges as follows:

eventual intimate relationship with her, as detailed hereafter.

2. Worse, immediately after the exposure of Sanieoff’s infidelity, improper and

inappropriate sexual behavior and exploitation, he terminated Plaintiff’s employment, and

how powerful I am.”

4. These actions constitute causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional

under New York City Administrative Code.

PARTIES AND VENUE

5. Plaintiff, ALICE BAHAR (hereinafter referred to as “Bahar” or “Plaintiff”), is a

York, County and State of New York.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant ABRAHAM SANIEOFF (hereinafter

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant CHARLET SANIEOFF (hereinafter

Great Neck, County of Nassau and State of New York.

8. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s mother ELIZA SABETFARD

9. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s brother LEOR SABETFARD

10. Upon information and belief, C. Sanieoff’s brother MATTHEW SABETFARD

3, New York, New York 10001.

York County, where Plaintiff resides and works.

big deal when such an agreement is given.

15. Plaintiff met Sanieoff on May 18, 2016.

about the possibility of signing her as his broker.

apartments and any other paperwork.

person to go over an applications before, and believed this requirement to be unusual.

that same day on May 23rd.

Apartment #5’s lease on or about May 31 at or about 7 p.m. in Bahar’s office.

praised her for her hard work.

26th, in a turnaround so quick that it was not listed online.

her other exclusives in other buildings.

meeting with Sanieoff under his in-person policy.

hostile work atmosphere.

when she declined.

taken advantage of.

happened in Apartment #4 before they had any personal contact.

45. In response, Plaintiff kept telling Sanieoff to go be with his family.

appreciation for all the work she did at 25 Grove.

York, New York.

price it accordingly. Plaintiff printed comparisons for him.

54. Meanwhile, Defendant C. Sanieoff had hired a private investigator to follow

56. As a direct result of Sanieoff’s inability to have a personal relationship with

work performance at 25 Grove and help with 601 Hudson.

February 17, 2017, 1:37 p.m. recording.

January 26, 2017 by Sanieoff.

the course of a two-and-a-half-week period.

so many people watching Bahar 24 hours a day.

intended to terrorize, intimidate and harass Plaintiff.

effect until July 12, 2017.

71. C. Sanieoff and E. Sabetfard were calling Plaintiff’s managers approximately

get Plaintiff fired.

of Israel, as E. Sabetfard alluded to in one of her many voicemails.

around her all the time.

circling around Plaintiff.

police station until he walked away.

Sabetfard, and they could see him walking behind her.

all the time when Plaintiff left her apartment.

recorded during her conversation with Breen.

she was good for, as he was directed to do by Defendants.

protection, valid until January 11, 2018.

a stranger—African-American with a husky build—sitting in front of her building, monitoring

building from this date and time.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION