On the similar time, the plaintiff noticed Woolworth was “very inebriated, as evidenced by his candid admission of the identical and slurred speech,” the criticism says. She expressed concern to Woolworth about “his stage of intoxication and insisted that this habits, which was recurring, was unacceptable and must cease if their relationship was to proceed.”
At that time, the criticism alleges, Woolworth “flew right into a rage, got here as much as [her] face,” and insulted her. “In his rage, [he] then bodily assaulted and battered” Lenzo and smashed her cellphone, in line with the criticism. Woolworth additionally “charged at Plaintiff, pinned her in opposition to the door, and proceeded to strangle her,” the criticism says.
Lenzo referred to as the police on a neighbor’s telephone, the criticism says.
Woolworth was charged with strangulation within the second diploma, a Class D felony in New York, in line with his Monetary Business Regulatory Authority BrokerCheck profile.
Lenzo is demanding judgment in opposition to Woolworth, Stifel Monetary Corp. and Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., together with compensatory and punitive damages. Causes of motion cited within the criticism are civil assault and battery in opposition to Woolworth, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional duress by Woolworth, negligence in opposition to the Stifel defendants and negligent supervision and retention by the Stifel defendants.
Stifel and Woolworth didn’t reply to ThinkAdvisor’s requests for remark. Woolworth’s subsequent court docket date is Could 16, 2024, and he expects the cost to be dismissed, he mentioned in a touch upon his BrokerCheck profile.
Woolworth remains to be registered at Stifel, the place he has been a dealer since 2012, in line with his BrokerCheck profile.
He served as a dealer for Morgan Stanley and, in 2012, joined Stifel, the place he served as a dealer and advisor.
In accordance with an Oct. 4, 2012, disclosure on his report, Morgan Stanley discharged him over “considerations ensuing from worker’s marking of transactions in his private securities account as ‘unsolicited’ and his introduction of a non-public placement not supplied by the agency.”