Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/26/2021 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 4/28/2021 2:47 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

2021CH02059

13126382
Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet
General Chancery Section ( 2/ / ) CCCH 0623

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

Northgate Pier Condominium Association

Plaintiff
v. Case No: 2021CH02059

Defendant

CHANCERY DIVISION CIVIL COVER SHEET

GENERAL CHANCERY SECTION

Only one (1) case type may be checked with this cover sheet.
0005 0017
0001 Class Action 0018
0002 0019 Partition
0004 0020
0021
0007 General Chancery 0022
0010 0023
0011 Arbitration 0024
0012 Certiorari 0025
0013 0026
0014 0050
0015
0016 ____________________________

24765
Atty. No.: ________________ Pro Se 99500
Pro Se Only:
Levin Ginsburg

Atty. for: Plaintiffs

Address: 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200

Chicago
City: ____________________________ IL
State: ____
60601
________
(312) 368-0100
________________________
hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
cookcountyclerkofcourt.org
Page 1 of 1
 Hearing Date: 8/26/2021 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM FILED
Courtroom Number: 2502 4/28/2021 2:47 PM
Location: District 1 Court IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
Cook County, IL CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2021CH02059
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM )

ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit )
corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) 2021CH02059
v. ) Case No.
)
THE CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, an )
Illinois municipal corporation, the CITY OF )
CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation)
and CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF )
TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND OTHER DAMAGES

Plaintiff, NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-

profit corporation (“Northgate”), by and through its attorneys, HOWARD L. TEPLINSKY and

ROENAN PATT of LEVIN GINSBURG, and as and for its Complaint for Declaratory Relief and

Other Damages against Defendants, the CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, an Illinois municipal

corporation (the “Park District”), the CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation (the

“City”) and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“CDOT”) (collectively

“Defendants”), states as follows:

PARTIES

1. At all times relevant, Northgate was, and is, a condominium association that owns,

manages, controls, maintains and operates the properties located at 7631-39-41 and 49 East Lake

Terrace, Chicago, Illinois 60626 7631 (the “Condos”).

 2. The Park District is an Illinois municipal corporation organized under and existing

under 70 ILCS 1505/1 et seq., with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

3. The City is an Illinois municipal corporation organized under and existing under 70

ILCS 1505/1 et seq., with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

4. CDOT is a local governmental agency responsible for transportation infrastructure

in the Chicago, Illinois, including planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and managing

public way infrastructure.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Defendants are, and at all times relevant were, citizens of the State of Illinois and

subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-101, venue is appropriate in Cook County, Illinois because

Defendants reside in Cook County and the actions alleged herein occurred in Cook County,

Illinois.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. Lake Michigan is located to the north and east of the Condos. The Condos abut

Lake Michigan and the area between the lake to the north and the Condos is separated only by a

concrete wall (the “Wall”).

8. At all times relevant, the Wall was, and is, located northeast of the Condos. The

Wall is located on property belonging to the Condos which Northgate manages, controls, maintains

and operates. The purpose of the Wall is to prevent rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves

and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan to the north to come south and towards the Condos.

The purpose of the Wall is also to prevent trespassers from entering the Condos from the northern

boundary.

Page 2 of 13
 9. Because the Wall is a common element, the individual unit owners own it.

10. The Wall is made of concrete and was approximately 57.5 inches in height and ran
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

to the end of the concrete landing which abuts Lake Michigan to the east.

11. A fence topper is located on the top of the Wall.

12. Directly north of the Wall is a pier that the Defendants, upon information and belief,

historically was, and is at all times relevant, owned, controlled, operated, maintained and managed.

13. Directly north and west of the Wall is Rogers Beach Park that, upon information

and belief and at all times relevant, was, and is, owned, controlled, operated, maintained and

managed by the Defendants.

14. The predominant purpose of the Wall was to prevent rising waters, overflow waters,

surges, waves and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan south of the Wall and into the Condos.

15. The Wall and fence topper were also constructed in order to prevent trespassers

from entering the property where the Condos are located.

16. On or prior to April 30, 2020, Defendants and/or their agents installed, placed or

constructed concrete jersey barriers (the “Barriers”) in Rogers Beach Park just west of the pier.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendants installed, placed or constructed the

Barriers to protect against rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves and uncontained waters

coming from Lake Michigan to Rogers Park Beach.

18. Upon information and belief, the Barriers were not secured or were inadequately

secured to the ground.

19. Defendants knew or should have known that the Barriers were not secured or were

inadequately secured to the ground as an inspection of the Barriers would have demonstrated that

the Barriers were not secured or were inadequately secured to the ground.

Page 3 of 13
 20. On or about April 30, 2020, a sudden calamitous event occurred whereby rising

waters, overflow waters, surges, waves and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan came onto
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

the pier and area where the Barriers were located on Rogers Beach Park which was north of the

Wall.

21. On or about April 30, 2020, a sudden calamitous event occurred causing rising

waters, overflow waters, surges, waves and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan to carry the

inadequately secured Barriers south smashing them with great force into the Wall, completely

obliterating it.

COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment)

22. Northgate restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth

herein as Paragraph 22 of Count I.

23. Defendants assert that a portion of the Wall is on Rogers Park Beach.

24. On or about April 30, 2020, a sudden calamitous occurred whereby rising waters,

overflow waters, surges, waves and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan came onto the pier

and area where the Barriers were located on Rogers Beach Park which was north of the Wall.

25. On or about April 30, 2020, a sudden calamitous event occurred causing rising

waters, overflow waters, surges, waves and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan to carry the

inadequately secured Barriers south smashing them with great force into the Wall, completely

obliterating it.

26. At all times relevant, the Defendants had a plan for placing the Barriers and carried

out their plan for placing the Barriers.

Page 4 of 13
 27. Defendants’ exact placement of the Barriers was not a determination of policy or

an exercise of discretion.
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

28. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers was not a determination of

policy or an exercise of discretion.

29. Defendants’ failure to place the Barriers is a ministerial act because the decision of

where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was merely the

execution of a set task.

30. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers is a ministerial act because the

decision of where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was

merely the execution of a set task.

31. At all times relevant during the placement of the Barriers and subsequent to the

placement of the Barriers thereto, Defendants acted ministerially and had a duty to see the work

was done in a reasonably safe and skilled manner.

32. As a result of the sudden and calamitous occurrence that obliterated the Wall, there

now exists an approximate 32 inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property

owned by Northgate.

33. The 32 inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property owned by

Northgate is a hazard and an unreasonably dangerous condition.

34. Defendants have been notified of the obliteration of the Wall and the existence of

the 32 inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property owned by Northgate which

constitutes a hazard and an unreasonably dangerous condition.

Page 5 of 13
 35. Upon information and belief, Defendants have conducted an inspection of the

obliterated Wall and the 32 inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property owned
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

by Northgate which constitutes a hazard and an unreasonably dangerous condition.

36. Northgate has demanded that Defendants repair the Wall so as to rectify the 32-

inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property owned by Northgate which would

eliminate the hazard and the unreasonably dangerous condition.

37. Defendants have willfully and wantonly refused to repair the Wall and to rectify

the 32-inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto the property owned by Northgate which

is a hazard and an unreasonably dangerous condition and by refusing to repair the Wall and rectify

the 32-inch drop have allowed a hazard and unreasonably dangerous condition to exist.

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to repair the Wall and to

rectify the 32inch drop from the Rogers Park Beach surface onto Northgate’s property, which is a

hazard and an unreasonably dangerous condition, rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves

and uncontained waters from Lake Michigan have entered the Condos causing damage to other

property than just the Wall. Additionally, individuals have trespassed in in the area previously

blocked by the Wall.

39. Section 10/3-102(a) states: “Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local

public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe

condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and

permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably

foreseeable that it would be used.”

40. Defendants have negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to perform their duty to

exercise ordinary care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition.

Page 6 of 13
 41. The Illinois Declaratory Judgment Act states: “The court may, in cases of actual

controversy, make binding declaration of rights, having the force of final judgments, whether or
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

not any consequential relief is or could be claimed, including the determination, at the instance of

anyone interested in the controversy, of the construction of any statute, municipal ordinance, or

other governmental regulation, or of any deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and a

declaration of rights of the parties interested.”

42. An actual controversy exists between Northgate and Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois not-for-profit corporation, respectfully requests that this Court enter a declaratory

judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 declaring the rights between the parties as follows:

a. Declare that the Defendants have a duty to maintain the Wall and the 32 inch

drop in a reasonably safe condition;

b. Declare that the Defendants’ duty to maintain the Wall and the 32 inch drop in

a reasonably safe condition requires Defendants to repair the Wall to its original

specifications; and

c. Any other further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and equitable under

the circumstances.

COUNT II
(Negligence)

43. Northgate restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth

herein as Paragraph 43 of Count II.

44. On or prior to April 30, 2020, Defendants and/or its agents installed, placed or

constructed Barriers in Rogers Beach Park just west of the pier.

Page 7 of 13
 45. At all times relevant, the Defendants had a plan for placing the Barriers and carried

out their plan for placing the Barriers.

FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

46. Defendants’ exact placement of the Barriers was not a determination of policy or

an exercise of discretion.

47. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers was not a determination of

policy or an exercise of discretion.

48. Defendants’ failure to place the Barriers is a ministerial act because the decision of

where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was merely the

execution of a set task.

49. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers is a ministerial act because the

decision of where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was

merely the execution of a set task.

50. At all times relevant during the placement of the Barriers and subsequent to the

placement of the Barriers thereto, Defendants acted ministerially and had a duty to see the work

was done in a reasonably safe and skilled manner.

51. In installing, placing or constructing the Barriers, Defendants had a duty to exercise

ordinary and reasonable care in placing and securing the Barriers so that they would not come

loose and damage the Wall or other property owned by Northgate.

52. Notwithstanding the aforementioned duty, Defendants committed one or more of

the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions:

a. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to place the Barriers in a location

that would not permit them to be moved by rising waters, overflow waters,

Page 8 of 13
 surges, waves, uncontained waters and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall

or other property owned by Northgate;

FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

b. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to secure the Barriers whatsoever to

the location where the Barriers were placed to ensure that Barriers would not

be moved by causing rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves,

uncontained waters and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall or other property

owned by Northgate;

c. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to adequately secure the Barriers to

the location where the Barriers were placed to ensure that Barriers would not

be moved by rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves, uncontained waters

and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall or other property owned by

Northgate; and

d. Was otherwise carless and/or negligent.

53. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforementioned careless,

negligent, willful and wanton acts or omissions of Defendants, the Wall and other property owned

by Northgate were damaged.

54. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforementioned careless,

negligent, willful and wanton acts or omissions of Defendants which damaged the Wall, rising

waters, overflow waters, surges, waves, uncontained waters from Lake Michigan have seeped

through where the Wall was previously located and damaged the Condos.

55. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforementioned careless,

negligent, willful and wanton acts or omissions of Defendants which damaged the Wall,

Page 9 of 13
 trespassers who previously could not enter the Condos because of the Wall have now been entering

the property.
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois not-for-profit corporation, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor

and against Defendants, the CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, an Illinois municipal corporation, the

CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, in an amount in excess of $100,000.00, Court costs, and grant such other

and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT III
(Premises Liability, in the alternative)

56. Plaintiffs restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth

herein as Paragraph 56 of Count III.

57. Defendants have asserted that a portion of the Wall is on the Defendants’ property

located at Rogers Park Beach and the pier (the “Property”).

58. On and prior to April 30, 2020, Defendants owned, managed, controlled, occupied,

maintained and operated the Property.

59. The Wall is managed, controlled, maintained and operated by Northgate.

60. On and prior to April 30, 2020, the Wall was legally and lawfully upon Defendants’

Property.

61. On and prior to April 30, 2020, there existed a dangerous condition on Defendants’

Property in the form of the Barriers which were not secured or inadequately secured.

62. At all times relevant, the Defendants had a plan for placing the Barriers and carried

out their plan for placing the Barriers.

Page 10 of 13
 63. Defendants’ exact placement of the Barriers was not a determination of policy or

an exercise of discretion.
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

64. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers was not a determination of

policy or an exercise of discretion.

65. Defendants’ failure to place the Barriers is a ministerial act because the decision of

where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was merely the

execution of a set task.

66. Defendants’ failure to properly secure the Barriers is a ministerial act because the

decision of where to place the Barriers and how to secure them or to not secure them at all was

merely the execution of a set task.

67. At all times relevant during the placement of the Barriers and subsequent to the

placement of the Barriers thereto, Defendants acted ministerially and had a duty to see the work

was done in a reasonably safe and skilled manner.

68. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of both

the dangerous condition and the risk of harm caused by the Barriers which were inadequately

secured.

69. On and prior to April 30, 2020, it was the duty of Defendants, as the owners,

managers, controllers, occupiers, maintainers and operators of the Property to exercise ordinary

care to see that the Property was reasonably safe for the use of those lawfully on the Property.

70. Notwithstanding the aforementioned duty, Defendants committed one or more of

the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions:

a. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to place the Barriers in a location

that would not permit them to be moved by rising waters, overflow waters,

Page 11 of 13
 surges, waves, uncontained waters and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall

or other property owned by Northgate;

FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

b. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to secure the Barriers whatsoever to

the location where the Barriers were placed to ensure that Barriers would not

be moved by rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves, uncontained waters

and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall or other property owned by

Northgate;

c. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to adequately secure the Barriers to

the location where the Barriers were placed to ensure that Barriers would not

be moved by rising waters, overflow waters, surges, waves, uncontained waters

and/or other forces so as to strike the Wall or other property owned by

Northgate;

d. Negligently, willfully and wantonly failed to properly inspect the Barriers to

ensure that they were secured; and

e. Was otherwise carless and/or negligent.

71. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforementioned careless,

negligent, willful and wanton acts or omissions of Defendants, Northgate’s Wall and other

property was damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois not-for-profit corporation, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor

and against Defendants, the CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, an Illinois municipal corporation, the

CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation and the CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF

Page 12 of 13
 TRANSPORTATION, in an amount in excess of $100,000.00, Court costs, and grant such other

and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
FILED DATE: 4/28/2021 2:47 PM 2021CH02059

NORTHGATE PIER CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation, Plaintiff

By: /s/ Howard L. Teplinsky

One of its Attorneys

Mr. Howard L. Teplinsky – hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com

Mr. Roenan Patt - rpatt@lgattorneys.com
LEVIN GINSBURG
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Firm No. 24765
180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601-2800
Telephone: (312) 368-0100
Telefax: (312) 368-0111

Page 13 of 13