Seems like Monaco’s Prince Pierre Casiraghi isn’t finished with the drama that brought his family name disrepute earlier this year when he and high society pals, Stavros Niarchos, Vladimir Roitfeld and Diego Marroquin found themselves in a delicious fisty cuff with former club owner Adam Hock as he sat cavorting with long legged models.
In papers filed with the Manhattan Supreme Court, Pierre Casiraghi (Roitfeld and Marroquin have also added their names to the suit) is now arguing the incident led to him experiencing ‘personal injuries’ because the club (which he is also holding accountable) turned a blind eye to hawt bixch Adam Hock as he proceeded to get loaded, or to use the Prince’s words: ‘”visibly intoxicated, violent, abusive . . . vicious habits and propensities.”
Reports the NY Post: According to the suit, the trio had been invited over to Hock’s table in the VIP area by club owner Jeffrey Jah.
Hock “demonstrated overt signs of intoxication,” the suit says, and didn’t care for the company. He “punched, struck and/or attacked” all three, the suit says, before club employees tried to sneak him out “through a back door.”
Hock, a former owner of the now-shuttered Hawaiian Tropic Zone in Times Square, was later charged with misdemeanor assault for attacking the trio and a fourth man, Paris Hilton ex Stavros Niarchos. He contends he was defending himself.
The suit says Jah “knew or should have known” that Hock was “a person of pugilistic propensity” when he invited the men over to the table, and that his club failed “to provide minimal precautions against [Hock’s] foreseeable criminal acts.”
Should have known that Hock was a person with pugilistic propensity? Could one possibly use that term to describe half of NYC? And how was it precisely known that Hock had the propensity to behave like a warlord? Is there a dossier on him some that we haven’t read where it is described he likes to beat up on spoiled brats?
The trio have gone on to argue that since the February 18 incident their reputations for ‘peacefulness and good manners’ has been damaged after Hock went on to tell the Post that he was “victimized by several drunk entitled guys who felt they deserved the prime table” and who “expected to be treated like the royalty they are.” They also say they were defamed by his claim that “they threw the first punch” and had been “helping themselves to our vodka.” In other words fancy talk for ‘I don’t like it when people of lower elk than me make fun of me behind my back.’
Who’s also on the receiving end is Hock’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina for statements he made at the time as well:
The trio were ticked at Tacopina for describing them as “international bar brawlers” and “self-entitled punks who don’t have anything better to do than to spend their parents’ money.”
“These are four drunk guys who make a living trying to get their names in the papers . . . What happened that night happens all the time. They think mom and dad will dig them out of whatever trouble they get into,” the suit quotes Tacopina as saying.
Asked to reflect on the suit, Tacopina offered that he is ‘immensely’ looking forward to litigating the suit and that he has “every right to defend my clients publicly, especially when friends and agents of the accusers are out there calling him a criminal.”
In other words expect an extended replay of more of the mess that got all these guys in trouble in the first place, arrogance, lack of manners and a sense of entitlement that comes to those who rub cheeks with the golden velvet rope flock….
Can someone please buy this pair a round of ‘make up’ drinks before they get drunk on their own self delusion?